Scribd
Upload
37 views1 page

7 Phil 215 - Civil Law - Obligations and Contracts - Parties To A Contract - Liability of A Minor

Margarita Espiritu owned 48 hectares of land that was inherited by her husband and children after her death in 1897. However, in 1894 she had sold 71% of the land to her brother Luis Espiritu to pay off debts. After Margarita's death, her husband took out additional loans from Luis secured by the remaining land. In 1910, Margarita's children Domingo and Josefa, purportedly of legal age, acknowledged the previous land sales and loans to Luis in a notarized agreement and sold the remaining 29% of land to him. Later Domingo and Josefa contested the agreement, claiming they were minors at the time. The court upheld the agreement, finding

Uploaded by

Micho Diez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views1 page

7 Phil 215 - Civil Law - Obligations and Contracts - Parties To A Contract - Liability of A Minor

Margarita Espiritu owned 48 hectares of land that was inherited by her husband and children after her death in 1897. However, in 1894 she had sold 71% of the land to her brother Luis Espiritu to pay off debts. After Margarita's death, her husband took out additional loans from Luis secured by the remaining land. In 1910, Margarita's children Domingo and Josefa, purportedly of legal age, acknowledged the previous land sales and loans to Luis in a notarized agreement and sold the remaining 29% of land to him. Later Domingo and Josefa contested the agreement, claiming they were minors at the time. The court upheld the agreement, finding

Uploaded by

Micho Diez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

7 Phil 215 – Civil Law – Obligations and Contracts – Parties to a Contract – Liability of a

Minor

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).

ISSUE: Whether or not the agreement between Luis and Domingo et al in May 1910 is valid
despite the minority of the latter party.

HELD: Yes. In the first place, their minority of Domingo and Josefa was not proven 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.

You might also like