Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ruling:: Who Pretend To Be of Legal Age, When It Fact They Are Not, Is Valid, and They Will Not Be Permitted To

    Uploaded by

    Kate Bianca Caindoy
    30 views2 pages
    Ramon Alcantara executed a deed of sale for land as a minor in 1991, but later ratified the sale by affidavit after informing the buyers of his minority. After 9 years, Ramon sued to annul the sale. The Supreme Court ruled that Ramon could not annul the sale because he had already ratified it, giving it legal binding effect. While Ramon's initial execution as a minor was not valid, his later ratification made the contract fully valid as if by an adult with full capacity.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    22..SIASUANVSALCANTARA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ramon Alcantara executed a deed of sale for land as a minor in 1991, but later ratified the sale by affidavit after informing the buyers of his minority. After 9 years, Ramon sued to annul the sale. The Supreme Court ruled that Ramon could not annul the sale because he had already ratified it, giving it legal binding effect. While Ramon's initial execution as a minor was not valid, his later ratification made the contract fully valid as if by an adult with full capacity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views2 pages

    Ruling:: Who Pretend To Be of Legal Age, When It Fact They Are Not, Is Valid, and They Will Not Be Permitted To

    Uploaded by

    Kate Bianca Caindoy
    Ramon Alcantara executed a deed of sale for land as a minor in 1991, but later ratified the sale by affidavit after informing the buyers of his minority. After 9 years, Ramon sued to annul the sale. The Supreme Court ruled that Ramon could not annul the sale because he had already ratified it, giving it legal binding effect. While Ramon's initial execution as a minor was not valid, his later ratification made the contract fully valid as if by an adult with full capacity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. L-1720 March 4, 1950 SIA SUAN and GAW CHIAO, petitioners, vs.

    RAMON ALCANTARA,
    respondent. Antonio Barredo for petitioners. Zosimo D. Tanalega for respondents.

    In 1991, a deed of sale was executed by Rufino Alcanta and his two sons including Ramon who was a
    minor conveying to Sia Suan parcels of land. On the same month, Gaw Chiao the husband of Sia Suan
    received a letter from the attorney of Ramon Alcantara that he is a minor and disavowing the contract.
    However, Gaw chiao contacted Ramon, there he executed an affidavit and he ratified the deed of sale.
    He received a sum of P500.

    After 9 years, Ramon Alcantara instituted and action with the CFI of Laguna for annulment of deed of
    sale as regards his undivided share in the two parcels of land against Sia. Alcantara appealed of CA and it
    reversed the decision of RTC on the ground that deed of sale is not binding against Ramon since he is
    minor when it was executed.

    Counsel for the appellant invokes the decision in =Mercado and Mercado vs. Espiritu. The courts, in
    their interpretation of the law, have laid down the rule that the sale of real estate, made by minors
    who pretend to be of legal age, when it 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 annulled
    pursuance of the provisions of Law.

    ISSUE: W/N THE DEED OF SALE THAT R.M EXECUTED IS LEGALLY BINDING DESPITE BEING A MINOR?

    RULING:

    Ramon Alcantara in his minority may not


    be allowed to execute the deed of sale but
    his act of ratification,
    the contract was given a binding effect.
    Ruling: The SC ruled that Ramon is not
    allowed to annul such deed, because he
    already ratified it. The
    letter written by him informing the
    appellants of his minority constituted an
    effective disaffirmance of the
    sale, and that although the choice to
    disaffirm will not by itself avoid the
    contract until the courts adjudge
    the agreement to be invalid, said notice
    shielded Ramón from laches and
    consequent estoppels.
    HELD: RAMON ALCANTARA IN HIS MINORITY MAYNOT BE ALLOWED TO EXECUTE THE DEED OF SALE
    BUT HIS ACT OF RATIFICATION THE CONTRACT HAS GIVEN A BINDING EFFECT. Appellee's contract has
    become fully efficacious as a contract executed by parties with full legal capacity.

    RULING: THE SC RULED THAT RAMON IS NOT ALLOWED TO ANNUL SUCH DEED BECAUSE HE RATIFIED
    IT. THE LETTER WRITTEN BY HIM INFORMING appellants of his minority constituted an effective
    disaffirmance of the sale, and that although the choice to disaffirm will not by itself avoid the contract
    until the courts adjudge the agreement to be invalid, said notice shielded the appellee from laches and
    consequent estoppel.

    The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and the appellants absolved from the
    complaint, with costs against the appellee, Ramon Alcantara. So ordered.

    You might also like