Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 160 views

    Braganza v. Villa Abrille (DIGEST)

    Uploaded by

    Micaella
    The case involved a promissory note signed by Rosario de Braganza and her two sons, Rodolfo and Guillermo, who were 16 and 18 years old at the time, borrowing P70,000 from Fernando de Villa Abrille. While the lower courts held all parties liable, including the two minors, the Supreme Court ruled that the minors could not be held liable as there was no actual fraud in failing to disclose their age. However, the minors were still responsible for restitution to the extent that they benefited from the loan proceeds used for their support. The mother remained fully liable as her liability was not affected by the minors' defense of being underage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Braganza v. Villa Abrille (DIGEST)

    Uploaded by

    Micaella
    160 views1 page
    The case involved a promissory note signed by Rosario de Braganza and her two sons, Rodolfo and Guillermo, who were 16 and 18 years old at the time, borrowing P70,000 from Fernando de Villa Abrille. While the lower courts held all parties liable, including the two minors, the Supreme Court ruled that the minors could not be held liable as there was no actual fraud in failing to disclose their age. However, the minors were still responsible for restitution to the extent that they benefited from the loan proceeds used for their support. The mother remained fully liable as her liability was not affected by the minors' defense of being underage.

    Original Description:

    Digest for Persons and Family Relations class

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a promissory note signed by Rosario de Braganza and her two sons, Rodolfo and Guillermo, who were 16 and 18 years old at the time, borrowing P70,000 from Fernando de Villa Abrille. While the lower courts held all parties liable, including the two minors, the Supreme Court ruled that the minors could not be held liable as there was no actual fraud in failing to disclose their age. However, the minors were still responsible for restitution to the extent that they benefited from the loan proceeds used for their support. The mother remained fully liable as her liability was not affected by the minors' defense of being underage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    160 views1 page

    Braganza v. Villa Abrille (DIGEST)

    Uploaded by

    Micaella
    The case involved a promissory note signed by Rosario de Braganza and her two sons, Rodolfo and Guillermo, who were 16 and 18 years old at the time, borrowing P70,000 from Fernando de Villa Abrille. While the lower courts held all parties liable, including the two minors, the Supreme Court ruled that the minors could not be held liable as there was no actual fraud in failing to disclose their age. However, the minors were still responsible for restitution to the extent that they benefited from the loan proceeds used for their support. The mother remained fully liable as her liability was not affected by the minors' defense of being underage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PERSONS

    Braganza v. de Villa Abrille

    G.R No. L-12571, April 13, 1959

    Doctrine:

    Facts:

    On October 30, 1944, Rosario de Braganza and her sons Rodolfo and Guillermo received from Fernando de Villa
    Abrille a loan of P70,000 in Japanese war notes and promised in writing to pay him P10,000 "in legal currency of the
    P. I. two years after the cessation of the present hostilities or as soon as International Exchange has been established
    in the Philippines", plus 2% per annum. Because payment had not been made, Villa Abrille sued them in March 1949.

    In their Answer, defendants claimed to have received P40,000 only-instead of P70,000, as plaintiff asserted. They also
    averred that Guillermo and Rodolfo, being 16 and 18 respectively, were minors when they signed the promissory note.
    The trial court rendered judgment holding petitioners solidarily liable to pay Villa Abrille the P10,000, plus 2% annual
    interest.

    The Court of Appeals found the minors liable reasoning that they did not disclose in the promissory note that they were
    not yet of legal age. Relying on Mercado vs. Espiritu, the CA held that “when minors pretended to be of legal age, when
    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.”

    Regarding the responsibility of Rosario L. Braganza, The Court ruled that there is no doubt that she is liable since the
    minority of her consigners does not release her from liability; since it is a personal defense of the minors. However,
    such defense will benefit her the extent of the shares for which such minors may be responsible.

    Issue: Whether the boys, who were 16 and 18 respectively, are to be legally bound by the contract of loan they have
    signed.

    Held: No, the minors are not liable for the promissory note. According to American Jurisprudence, "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.” To hold them liable, the fraud must be
    actual and not constructive. Under the Mercado case cited, the document signed therein by the minor specifically stated
    he was of age; here the note contained no such statement. In other words, in the Mercado case, the minor was guilty
    of active misrepresentation; whereas in this case, if the minors were guilty at all, it is of passive (or constructive)
    misrepresentation.

    However, the minors may not be entirely absolved from monetary responsibility. According to Art. 1340 of the [old]
    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. There is testimony that the funds delivered to them by Abrille
    were used for their support during the Japanese era.

    MICAELLAGARCIA | BLOCK 5 DLSU LAW 1

    You might also like