5. Contracts: NCC 1327, NCC par. 1, 1403 par.

3, NCC 1397, 1399, NCC 1489, NCC 1426-1427

[G.R. No. L-1720. March 4, 1950.]

SIA SUAN and GAW CHIAO, Petitioners, v. RAMON ALCANTARA, Respondent.

The facts of the case are as follows:
 August 3, 1931- deed of sale was executed between Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso and
Ramon, giving five parcels of land to Sia Suan.
 Ramon’s age was 17 years, 10 months, and 22 days.
 August 27, 1931- Gaw Chiao, the husband of Sia Suan received a letter from Francisco Alfonso,
Ramon’s attorney. Informing Gaw that Ramon was a minor when the deed of sale was executed,
disavowing (denying any responsibility to) the contract.
 Ramon then executed an affidavit wherein he ratified (approved) the deed of sale. Ramon
received P500 from Gaw Chiao.
 Sia Suan sold one of the lots to Nicolas Azores, wherein Nicolas’ son Antonio.
 August 8, 1940- Ramon Alcantara filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, for the annulment
of the deed of sale, with regards to his undivided share in the two parcels of land covered by the
certificates 751 and 752 of Laguna.

Alcantara's 5
parcels of land

Sia Suan and

Gaw Chiao

Kept the four Sold one to

parcels of land Azores

Ramon was able Ramon was

to get P500 for trying to get his
the share share
RTC of Laguna

 Absolved all defendants (Suan, Chiao, Ramon’s father and brother, Antonio Azores)

Court of Appeals

 Reversed the RTC’s decision by requiring Sia Suan to pay Ramon his share on the land sold to
Antionio Azores with the sum of P1750 with legal interest from December 31, 1931.
Issue:

Whether or not Ramon Alcantara is entitled to the shares of the parcels of land, given that Suan and
Chiao were not informed that he was a minor at the execution date of the deed of sale of the land?

Held:

 NO. He is not entitled to the sales, and entitled to annul the deed of sale, since he was a minor
when he signed the contract.
 The Civil Code requires the consent of both parties for the valid execution of a contract (art. 1261,
Civil Code). As a minor cannot give his consent, the contract made or executed by him has no
validity and legal effect.
 The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and the appellants absolved
from the complaint, with costs against the appellee, Ramon Alcantara. So ordered.
[G.R. No. L-12471. April 13, 1959.]

ROSARIO L. DE BRAGANZA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. FERNANDO F. DE VILLA ABRILLE, Respondent.

The facts of the case are as follows:

 Rosario Braganza and her sons Rodolfo and Guillermo, filed a petition for review in the
Court of Appeals on the decision wherein they were required to pay Fernando F. de Villa
Abrille the sum of P10,000 plus 2% interest from October 30, 1944.
 October 30, 1944- Rosario and her sons signed a P 70,000 (Japanese war notes) loan
agreement with Fernando de Villa Abrille.
 Braganza was to pay two years after the hostilities at the time (Japanese invasion and
Commonwealth reestablishment), P10,000 in legal currency of the Philippines plus 2%
interest per annum.
 March 1949-payment has not been made, thus Villa Abrille sued them.
 In Braganza’s defense, they only received P40,000 instead of P70,000, and asserted that
Guillermo and Rodolfo were minors when they signed the promissory note.
 The Court of Appeals said that Braganza cannot be released from her liability because her
sons were minors at the time. Therefore, the extent of the shares for which her sons are
responsible, will be her responsibility.

Issue:
Whether or not Guillermo and Rodolfor are liable in paying their obligations to Villa Abrille, as
they were minors at the time they signed the contract

Held:

 YES. Guillermo and Rodolfo are liable to pay their obligations, in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Code even if their written contract is unenforceable because of
non-age, they shall make restitution to the extent that they may have profited by the
money they received. (Art. 1340)
 The testimony where the funds were delivered to them by Villa Abrille were used for
their support during the Japanes occupation.
 It is fair to hold that they had profited to the extent of the value of the money.
 Accordingly, the appealed decision should be modified in the sense that Rosario Braganza
shall pay 1/3 of P10,000 i.e., P3,333.33 4 plus 2% interest from October 1944; and
Rodolfo and Guillermo Braganza shall pay jointly 5 to the same creditor the total amount
of P1,166.67 plus 6% interest beginning March 7, 1949, when the complaint was filed. No
costs in this instance.