The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of land was void because the plaintiff, Isidro Bambalan y Prado, was a minor at the time he executed the deed of sale in favor of defendant Genoveva Muerong. As Bambalan did not pretend to be of age and his minority was known to Muerong, the sale cannot be validated and estoppel does not apply in this case.
The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of land was void because the plaintiff, Isidro Bambalan y Prado, was a minor at the time he executed the deed of sale in favor of defendant Genoveva Muerong. As Bambalan did not pretend to be of age and his minority was known to Muerong, the sale cannot be validated and estoppel does not apply in this case.
Original Description:
Isidro Mambalan y Prado v. German Maramba and Genoveva Muerong
30 January 1928
The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of land was void because the plaintiff, Isidro Bambalan y Prado, was a minor at the time he executed the deed of sale in favor of defendant Genoveva Muerong. As Bambalan did not pretend to be of age and his minority was known to Muerong, the sale cannot be validated and estoppel does not apply in this case.
The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of land was void because the plaintiff, Isidro Bambalan y Prado, was a minor at the time he executed the deed of sale in favor of defendant Genoveva Muerong. As Bambalan did not pretend to be of age and his minority was known to Muerong, the sale cannot be validated and estoppel does not apply in this case.
ISIDRO BAMBALAN Y PRADO v GERMAN MARAMBA and GENOVEVA MUERONG
30 January 1928 | R!ua"d#$% J.
&UI'( SUMMARY) Bambalan executed a deed of sale in favor of Muerong regarding a piece of land registered under his name. Petitioner was still a minor at the time of the sale. The SC held that the sale is void because of Bambalans minority at the time of the transaction. He did not pretend to be of age which was also proven by the fact that the defendant was the one who purchased the plaintiffs first cedula used in the ac!nowledgement of the document. Because there was no misrepresentation the ruling in Mercado v. Espiritu does not apply.
*A'+S) Plaintiff "sidro Bambalan is the registered owner #with a Torrens title$ of a parcel of land which he inherited from his father as the latters sole and universal heir. He executed a deed of sale in favor of defendant %enoveva Muerong conveying ownership upon the piece of land. &efendant presents proof of such transfer in a document dated '( )uly '*++. Petitioner asserts that the document was signed out of intimidation by Muerong who threatened his mother Paula Prado with imprisonment. "t is said that Paula and her husband ,icente -agera received a certain sum of money #disputed amount. +// or '0/$ from Muerong1 and the latter upon learning about the Torrens title issued in Petitioners name caused him to sign the document in 2uestion. Petitioner was still a minor at the time of the alleged sale.
ISSUE) 345 the sale of the land is valid
,ELD) 5o the sale is void. The document supporting the existence of the sale is vitiated to the extent of being void for at the time petitioner signed it he was still a !-nr and it does not appear that it was his real intention to sell the land. The ruling in Mercado v. Espiritu d#. n/ a00"y in this case because his minority is well !nown to the purchaser as the defendant was the one who purchased plaintiffs first cedula used in the ac!nowledgement of the document. Therefore estoppel cannot be claimed against him as there was n !-.r#0r#.#n/a/-n as to his age.
In the Matter of the Testate Estate of Edward e. Christensen, Deceased. Adolfo c. Aznar, Executor and Lucy Christensen, Heir of the Deceased, Executor and Heir-Appellees, Vs.helen Christensen Garcia, Oppositor-Appellant.
