Mercado v Espiritu

Case Name

Case No. Date of Promulgation Ponente Topic

DOMINGO MERCADO and JOSEFA MERCADO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JOSE ESPIRITU, administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu, defendant-appellee. G.R. No. L-11872 December 1, 1917 TORRES, J. (En Banc) Restrictions on capacity to act: Minority NATURE OF THE ACTION

 

Trial Court: Dismissed complaint filed by the plaintiffs SC: appeal by bill of exceptions ISSUES



W/N the agreement between Luis and Domingo et al in May 1910 is valid despite the minority of the latter party. RELEVANT FACTS OF ISSUE  





Margarita Espiritu was the owner of a 48 hectare land. In 1897, she died and the land was left to her husband (Wenceslao Mercado) and her children, Domingo Mercado, Josefa Mercado and 3 other siblings. Apparently however, during the lifetime of Margarita in 1894, she executed a deed of sale transferring about 71% of her land (covering 15 cavanes of seeds) to her brother Luis Espiritu (father of Jose Espiritu) for P2,000.00. After her death, Wenceslao had a hard time making ends meet for his family and so he took out a loan from Luis in the amount of P375.00. The loan was secured by the remainder of the lot. Later, that loan was increased to P600.00. In May 1910, Luis entered into a notarized agreement with Domingo and Josefa whereby the two, while purporting to 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). RATIO DECIDENDI

ISSUE W/N the agreement between Luis and Domingo et al in May

RATIO YES In the first place, their minority of Domingo and Josefa was not proven

1910 is valid despite the minority of the latter party.

with certainty because of the loss of official records (got burned down). However, even assuming that they were indeed minors, they are bound by their declaration in the notarized document where they presented themselves to be of legal age. Domingo claimed he was 23 years old in the said document. The Supreme Court declared: the sale of real estate, made by minors who pretend to be of legal age, when in 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 them annulled in pursuance of the provisions of Law. Further, there was no showing that the said notarized document was attended by any violence, intimidation, fraud, or deceit. RULING

“For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from have been refuted, and deeming said judgment to be in accordance with law and the evidence of record, we should, and do hereby, affirm the same, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.”