Mercado and Mercado v.

Espiritu
G.R. No. L-11872 December 1, 1917
TORRES, J.:

Petitioner/Plaintiffs:
Domingo Mercado and Josefa Mercado
Respondent/Defendant:
Jose Espiritu, administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu

Facts:

On May 25, 1894, Margarita Espiritu with her husband’s approval, conveyed a
portion of her 48 hectare paraphernal land property in Calumpit, Bulacan which covered
15 cavanes of seeds to her brother, Luis Espiritu, in exchange for PhP 2,000.00. It is
evidenced on the notarized instrument acknowledged by Wenceslao. When Margarita
Espiritu died in 1987, she left the said property to her husband (Wenceslao Espiritu) and
their 4 children (Domingo, Josefa, Concepcion and Paz). In 1901, Wenceslao took out a
loan from Luis in the amount of PhP 375.00 and pledged or mortgaged the adjoining
land with an area that covers 6 cavanes of seeds, evidence in a private document. The
loan will be used for his children ’s needs. It was later increased to PhP 600.00. When
Wenceslao died, the petitioners with their sisters Concepcion and Paz declared
themselves to be of legal age and in possession of the required legal status to contract,
executed and subscribed with their uncle Luis before a notary, document on May 17,
1910. It is an agreement acknowledging the previous sale of land made by their parents
with Luis in consideration in the amount of PhP 400.00 as an increase of the previous
purchase price of the land. Luis Espiritu was accused to have induced and fraudulently
succeeded in getting the plaintiffs to sell their land for a sum of P400 as opposed to its
assessed value of P3,795. But later on, the petitioners are contesting the validity of the
sale as Domingo and Josefa were minors, only aged 18 and 19 respectively when they
entered into the agreement in May 1910 (21 was the age of majority that time). They
were also assailing that Luis cajoled and fraudulently induced them to sign the deed of
sale. Moreover, they also claim that in 1910, Luis got Domingo a cedula which falsely
indicated that he was 23 years old.

Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale contracted by the plaintiff when they were minor
was void on the ground that they have no legal capacity to act..

Ruling: Yes. The Court ruled that the lawful owner of the land was Luis Espiritu by
virtue of the the title of conveyance of ownership of the and measuring 15 cavanes, and,
in consequence of the contract of pledge or mortgage in security for the sum of P600, is
likewise in lawful possession of the remainder of the land, or an area containing
6 cavanes of seed. The courts have laid down the rule that the sale of a real estate,
made by minors who presented themselves to be of legal age, when in fact they are not,
is a valid contract. Their minority was not proven by sufficient evidence as no baptismal
certificate was presented or adduced any supplemental evidence. The testimony of
their witness does not constitute sufficient proof. And even though they were really
minors when the document was executed, the sale still remains valid. Moreover, the
court stated that they will not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of
the obligations contracted by them, or to have them annulled.

Ratio decidendi:

The courts have laid down that such sale of real estate was still valid since it
was executed by minors, who have passed the ages of puberty and adolescence, and
are near adulthood, and that the minors pretended that they had already reached the
age of majority.

Art.38. Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality

and civil-interdiction are mere restrictions on the capacity to act, and do not
exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise
from his acts or from property relations, such as easements

Also, these minors cannot be permitted afterwards to excuse themselves from

compliance with the obligation assumed by them or seek their annulment. This is
in accordance with the provisions of the law on estoppels.

CC Art. 1431 Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered

conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon.

Rule 123, sec 68, Par. A. “Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to
be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, cannot be permitted to falsify it”.