139 Badillo v. Ferrer

Specpro Digest by M.
Dizon
Rules on Family Welfare; Guardianship
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Badillo v. Ferrer
G.R. No. L-51369 | July 29, 1987 | Gancayco, J.
Parties:
APPELLEES DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
The minors Alberto, Nenita, Hilly, Cristy and Maria Clarita Ferrer (defendant)
Salome Badillo, assisted by their guardian Modesta
Badillo Gregorio Soromero and Eleuteria Rana
Doctrine:
The powers given by law to natural guardians cover only matters of administration and cannot include the
power of disposition. Permission from the court must first be secured before the guardian may alienate
property or a portion thereof that belongs to the ward. The ward may, however, ratify the sale.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
FACTS
• Macario Badillo died intestate. He was survived by his widow, Clarita Ferrer, and five minor children
(see table above). Macario left behind a parcel of registered land in Lumban, Laguna, with a house
erected thereon, valued at P7,500.00.
o Each of the minors inherited a 1/12 share of the P7,500.00, or P625.00 each.
• Ferrer executed in her own behalf and as natural guardian of the minors a Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition and Sale of the property, through which the property was sold to the defendants-appellants.
A new TCT was issued in the names of the latter.
• Badillo, the sister of Macario, was able to obtain guardianship over the minors without personal notice
to Ferrer, their mother, who allegedly could not be located in spite of efforts.
o Badillo caused the minor plaintiffs to file a complaint for the annulment of the sale and ask to
be allowed to exercise the right of redemption as co-owners of the property.
CASE TRAIL
• Lower court – annulled the sale and allowed the minor plaintiffs to redeem the sold participation of
their mother.
o Defendants-appellees appealed to the SC.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ISSUES & HELD
1. W/N the 30-day period provided in the NCC for the minors to redeem their mother’s share in the
property has elapsed—YES.
• Under the NCC, the father, or in his absence, the mother, is considered the legal administrator of the
property pertaining to his child under parental authority without need of giving a bond in case the
amount of his child’s property does not exceed P2,000.00.
o Furthermore, Rule 93, Sec. 7 of the Revised Rules of Court automatically designates the
parent as the legal guardian of the child without need of any judicial appointment in case the
latter’s property does not exceed P2,000.00.
o The period fixed for legal redemption starts to run against a minor co-owner whose property
is valued less than P2,000.00 and who is merely represented by his parent with no judicial
appointment as guardian. The period begins when the parent-guardian is served with a notice
in writing of the sale of an undivided portion of the property by the vendor.
• ITC, the value of the property of each minor appellee does not exceed P2,000.00 (P625.00
each). After their father died, Ferrer automatically became their legal guardian, and she
acquired the plenary powers of a judicial guardian except that power to alienate or encumber
her children’s property without judicial authorization.
o When Ferrer signed and received her copy of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale, the
document evidencing the transfer of the property to the appellants, she also in effect received
1
Specpro Digest by M. Dizon
Rules on Family Welfare; Guardianship
the notice in writing required by the NCC in behalf of her children. Thus, the period of
redemption began to toll from the time of that receipt.
o The offer to redeem made by Badillo as the newly-appointed judicial guardian was made
months after the period for legal redemption had already expired.
o The appellants cannot now be ordered to reconvey to the minors the portion of undivided
property which originally belonged to Ferrer.
2. W/N the sale by Ferrer of the 5/12 share of her children on the property is null and void—YES.
• The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale is not a voidable or an annullable contract under Article
1390 of the New Civil Code.
o Article 1390 renders a contract voidable if one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to
the contract or if the contracting party's consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation,
undue influence or fraud.
o ITC, however, the appellee minors are not even parties to the contract involved. Their
names were merely dragged into the contract by their mother who claimed a right to represent
them, purportedly in accordance with Article 320 of the New Civil Code.
• The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale is an unenforceable or an unauthorized contract under
Articles 1403 (1) and 1317 of the New Civil Code.
o Ferrer had no authority or had acted beyond her powers in conveying to the appellants that
5/12 undivided share of her minor children in the property involved in this case. The powers
given to her by the laws as the natural guardian covers only matters of administration
and cannot include the power of disposition. She should have first secured the permission
of the court before she alienated that portion of the property in question belonging to her minor
children.
o The minors ever ratified this Deed and even questioned its validity as to them. Hence, the
contract remained unenforceable or unauthorized. No restitution may be ordered from the
appellee minors either as to that portion of the purchase price which pertains to their share in
the property or at least as to that portion which benefited them because the law does not
sanction any.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RULING:
The appellants are ordered to restore to the appellees the full ownership and possession of the latter's 5/12
share in the undivided property by executing the proper deed of reconveyance. The appellants' ownership
over the remaining 7/12 share in the undivided property is confirmed.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

139 Badillo v. Ferrer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

139 Badillo v. Ferrer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

139 Badillo v. Ferrer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Specpro Digest by M.

You might also like