NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES vs.

COURT OF APPEALS,

JESUSFELIANO and ANUNCIANO FELIANO

G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007

FACTS:

Sometime in 1964, Rurfino Cabales died leaving behind a parcel of land inSouthern Leyte to his wife,
Saturnina and six children, namely, Bonifacio, Francisco,Alberto, Albino, Lenora, and Rito. On 1971, the
brothers and co-owners Bonifacio,Alberto and Albino sold the property to Dr. Corrompido with a right to
repurchasewithin eight (8) years. On 1972, prior to the redemption of the property, Albertodied leaving
behind his wife and son, Nelson, herein petitioner.

Sometime later and within the redemption period, the said brothers and their mother, in lieu of Alberto,
tendered their payment to Dr. Corrompido. Subsequently,Saturnina, and her four children, Bonifacio,
Albino, Francisco and Leonora sold the said land to Spouses Feliano. It was provided in the deed of sale
that the shares of Nelson and Rito, being minor at the time of the sale, will be held in trust by the
vendee and will paid upon them reaching the age of 21.In 1986, Rito received the sum of 1,143 pesos
from the Spouses Felianorepresenting his share from the proceeds of the sale of the property.

It was only in1988, that Nelson learned of the sale from his uncle, Rito. He signified his intention to
redeem the property in 1993 but it was only in 1995 that he filed a complaint for redemption against the
Spouses Feliano. The respondent Spouses averred that the petitioners are estopped from denying the
sale since: (1) Rito already received his share; and (2) Nelson, failed to tender the total amount of the
redemption price.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favour of Spouses Feliano on the ground that Nelson was no longer
entitled to the property since, his right was subrogated bySaturnina upon the death of his father,
Alberto. It also alleged that Rito had no more right to redeem since Saturnina, being his legal guardian at
the time of the sale was properly vested with the right to alienate the same.

The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court stating that the sale made by Saturnina in
behalf of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sale made by a legal guardian (Saturnina) in behalf of the minors were binding upon
them.

HELD:

With regard to the share of Rito, the contract of sale was valid. UnderSection 1, Rule 96 A guardian
shall have the care and custody of the person of hisward, and the management of his estate, or the
management of the estate only. x xx Indeed, the legal guardian only has the plenary power of
administration of theminors property. It does not include the power of alienation which needs
judicialauthority. Thus, when Saturnina, as legal guardian of petitioner Rito, sold the latters pro indiviso
share in subject land, she did not have the legal authority to doso. Accordingly, the contract as to the
share of Rito was unenforceable. However,when he received the proceeds of the sale, he effectively
ratified it. This act of ratification rendered the sale valid and binding as to him.With respect to petitioner
Nelson, the contract of sale was void. He was a minor at the time of the sale. Saturnina or any and all
the other co-owners were no this legal guardians; rather it was his mother who if duly authorized by the
courts,could validly sell his share in the property. Consequently, petitioner Nelson retained ownership
over their undivided share in the said property. However, Nelson can no longer redeem the property
since the thirty day redemption period has expired and thus he remains as co-owner of the property
with the Spouses Feliano.