ROSARIO L. DE BRAGANZA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. FERNANDO F. DE VILLA ABRILLE, respondent.

1959-04-13 | G.R. No. L-12471

D E C I S I O N PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals

BENGZON, J.: IV. Restriction on capacity to act. 1. Minority

Facts:

Guillermo and Rodolfo Braganza --16 and 18 respectively, together with their mother, contracted a loan
with the respondent P70,000 in Japanese war notes and in consideration thereof, 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. He claimed to have received
P40,000 only--instead of P70,000 as plaintiff asserted.

Both the lower court and CA ruled in favor of the respondent citing Mercado, et al. vs. Espiritu, “When
minors, like in the instant case, 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”. Hence, this petition for review.

Issues:

Whether or not the petitioners Guillermo and Rodolfo can be held liable when they signed the
promissory note as minor

Whether or not the action can be annulled on the ground that more than 4 years had elapsed after the
petitioners had become emancipated upon reaching the age or majority

Ruling:

No. The Mercado case cited in the decision under review is different because the document signed therein
by the minor specifically stated he was of age; here it 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, which we doubt it is of passive (or constructive) misrepresentation.

The failure of the minor to disclose his minority when making a contract does not per se, constitute a
fraud which can be made the basis of an action of deceit. In order to hold the minor liable, the fraud must
be actual and not constructive.

No. Where minority is set up only as a defense to an act on, without the minor asking for any positive
relief from the contract, the four-year period fixed by Article 1301 of the Civil Code may not be applied.

On the other hand, these minors may not be entirely absolved from monetary responsibility. Although
the written contract is unenforceable because of non-age, however, the minor shall make restitution to
the extent that he may have profited by the thing he received.

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 jointly5 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.