Domingo Mercado et al vs Jose Espiritu ISSUE: Whether or not the agreement between Luis and

Domingo et al in May 1910 is valid despite the minority of

the latter party.
HELD: Yes. In the first place, their minority of Domingo and
Margarita Espiritu was the owner of a 48 hectare land. In Josefa was not proven with certainty because of the loss of
1897, she died and the land was left to her husband official records (got burned down). However, even
(Wenceslao Mercado) and her children, Domingo Mercado, assuming that they were indeed minors, they are bound by
Josefa Mercado and 3 other siblings. their declaration in the notarized document where they
presented themselves to be of legal age. Domingo claimed
Apparently however, during the lifetime of Margarita in he was 23 years old in the said document. The Supreme
1894, she executed a deed of sale transferring about 71% Court declared: the sale of real estate, made by minors who
of her land (covering 15 cavanes of seeds) to her brother pretend to be of legal age, when in fact they are not, is
Luis Espiritu (father of Jose Espiritu) for P2,000.00. After valid, and they will not be permitted to excuse themselves
her death, Wenceslao had a hard time making ends meet from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by them, or
for his family and so he took out a loan from Luis in the to have them annulled in pursuance of the provisions of
amount of P375.00. The loan was secured by the remainder Law.
of the lot. Later, that loan was increased to P600.00.
Further, there was no showing that the said notarized
In May 1910, Luis entered into a notarized agreement with document was attended by any violence, intimidation, fraud,
Domingo and Josefa whereby the two, while purporting to or deceit.
be of legal age, acknowledged the sale and the loan
previously entered into by their parents with Luis. In the
same agreement, the siblings agreed that for and in
consideration of the amount of P400.00, they are
transferring the remainder 29% (covering 6 cavanes of
seeds) to Luis.
But later, the siblings contested the said agreement. Luis
later died and he was substituted by Jose. It is the
contention of Domingo et al that the agreement is void
because they were only minors, 19 and 18 years of age
respectively, when the contract was entered into in May
1910 (21 being the age of minority at that time).
ROSARIO L. DE BRAGANZA, ET AL., petitioners, vs.
FERNANDO F. DE VILLA ABRILLE, respondent.
Facts:
Rosario Braganza and her sons loaned from De Villa Abrille
P70,000 in Japanese war notes and in consideration thereof,
promised in writing to pay him P10,00 + 2% per annum in legal
currency of the Philippines 2 years after the cessation of the
war. Because they have no paid, Abrille sued them in March
1949. The Manila court of first instance and CA held the family
solidarily liable to pay according to the contract they signed.
The family petitioned to review the decision of the CA whereby
they were ordered to solidarily pay De Villa Abrille P10,000 +
2% interest, praying for consideration of the minority of the
Braganza sons when they signed the contract.
They also averred that Guillermo and Rodolfo were minors
when they signed the promissory note
Court of Appeals found them liable pursuant to the following
reasoning:
. . . . These two appellants did not make it appears in the
promissory note that they were not yet of legal age. If they
were really to their creditor, they should have appraised him
on their incapacity, and if the former, in spite of the information
relative to their age, parted with his money, then he should be
contended with the consequence of his act. But, that was not
the case. Perhaps defendants in their desire to acquire much
needed money, they readily and willingly signed the
promissory note, without disclosing the legal impediment with
respect to Guillermo and Rodolfo. When minor, like in the
instant case, pretended to be of legal age, in fact they were
not, they will not later on be permitted to excuse themselves
from the fulfillment of the obligation contracted by them or to
have it annulled. (Mercado, et al. vs. Espiritu, 37 Phil., 215.)
[Emphasis Ours.]
Issue: WON the minors are liable for the PN?
Ruling: No, in order to hold the infant liable, the fraud
must be actual and not constructive. It has been held that
his mere silence when making a contract as to his age
does not constitute a fraud which can be made the basis
of an action of deceit
Ratio:
minors' failure to disclose their minority in the same promissory
note they signed, it does not follow as a legal proposition, that
they will not be permitted thereafter to assert it. They had no
juridical duty to disclose their inability. In fact, according to
Corpuz Juris Secundum,
. . . . Some authorities consider that a false
representation as to age including a contract as part of
the contract and accordingly hold that it cannot be the
basis of an action in tort. Other authorities hold that
such misrepresentation may be the basis of such an
action, on the theory that such misrepresentation is not
a part of, and does not grow out of, the contract, or that
the enforcement of liability for such misrepresentation
as tort does not constitute an indirect of enforcing
 liability on the contract. In order to hold infant liable,
however, the fraud must be actual and not
constructure. It has been held that his mere silence
when making a contract as to age does not constitute a
fraud which can be made the basis of an action of
decit.

The fraud of which an infant may be held liable to one

who contracts with him in the belief that he is of full age
must be actual not constructive, and mere failure of the
infant to disclose his age is not sufficient.

HOWEVER The boys, though not bound by the provisions of

the contract, are still liable to pay the actual amount they have
profited from the loan. Art. 1340 states that even if the written
contract is unenforceable because of their non-age, they shall
make restitution to the extent that they may have profited by
the money received.

Notes:

Only the boys are relieved not their mother so the mother is
still liable for the 1/3+interest