Braganza v Villa Abrille Facts

Rosario Braganza with sone Rodolfo and Guillermo were requested to pay Fernando Villa Abrille the sum of Ten Thousand pesos plus 2% interest. They received loan from Villa Abruille. Braganza averred that she nly received 40K instead of 70K . Rosario in her defense that Guillermo and Rodolfo were minors when they signed the promissory note.

Issue: Whether or Not Guillermo and Rodolfo can be held liable for withholding their real age when they signed the promissory note. Ruling: The Mercado case was looked into this case but SC cited that the Mercado decision is different because the children were guilty of active misrepresentation, whereas in this case if the minors were guilty at all of passive misrepresentation, thus limiting the Mercado ruling with consideration that the very minority which incapacitated from contracting should likewise exempt them from results of misrepresentation. Art 1301 CC minority is set up only as a defence for an action, without the minors asking for any positive relief from the contract; they have not even field a case of annulment and is using it as an excuse from liability. Though the minors were not absolved from monetary responsibility even if their written contract is unenforceable because of non age they shall make restitution from the money they received (Art .1340) Civil Code.