Ruling:: Who Pretend To Be of Legal Age, When It Fact They Are Not, Is Valid, and They Will Not Be Permitted To
Ruling:: Who Pretend To Be of Legal Age, When It Fact They Are Not, Is Valid, and They Will Not Be Permitted To
Ruling:: Who Pretend To Be of Legal Age, When It Fact They Are Not, Is Valid, and They Will Not Be Permitted To
RAMON ALCANTARA,
respondent. Antonio Barredo for petitioners. Zosimo D. Tanalega for respondents.
In 1991, a deed of sale was executed by Rufino Alcanta and his two sons including Ramon who was a
minor conveying to Sia Suan parcels of land. On the same month, Gaw Chiao the husband of Sia Suan
received a letter from the attorney of Ramon Alcantara that he is a minor and disavowing the contract.
However, Gaw chiao contacted Ramon, there he executed an affidavit and he ratified the deed of sale.
He received a sum of P500.
After 9 years, Ramon Alcantara instituted and action with the CFI of Laguna for annulment of deed of
sale as regards his undivided share in the two parcels of land against Sia. Alcantara appealed of CA and it
reversed the decision of RTC on the ground that deed of sale is not binding against Ramon since he is
minor when it was executed.
Counsel for the appellant invokes the decision in =Mercado and Mercado vs. Espiritu. The courts, in
their interpretation of the law, have laid down the rule that the sale of real estate, made by minors
who pretend to be of legal age, when it fact they are not, is valid, and they will not be permitted to
excuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by them or to have annulled
pursuance of the provisions of Law.
ISSUE: W/N THE DEED OF SALE THAT R.M EXECUTED IS LEGALLY BINDING DESPITE BEING A MINOR?
RULING:
RULING: THE SC RULED THAT RAMON IS NOT ALLOWED TO ANNUL SUCH DEED BECAUSE HE RATIFIED
IT. THE LETTER WRITTEN BY HIM INFORMING appellants of his minority constituted an effective
disaffirmance of the sale, and that although the choice to disaffirm will not by itself avoid the contract
until the courts adjudge the agreement to be invalid, said notice shielded the appellee from laches and
consequent estoppel.
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.