Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 701 views

    Sia Suan vs. Alcantara (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    This case involves a deed of sale executed in 1931 conveying land from Ramon Alcantara and others to Sia Suan. Ramon Alcantara later sought to annul the deed on the basis that he was a minor at the time of execution. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the deed not binding against Ramon due to his minority. However, the Supreme Court reinstated the CFI decision, finding that Ramon was estopped from disavowing the contract due to his misrepresentation of being of legal age at the time of signing. The Supreme Court held that a minor who pretends to be of legal age will be bound by the contract,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sia Suan vs. Alcantara (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    701 views2 pages
    This case involves a deed of sale executed in 1931 conveying land from Ramon Alcantara and others to Sia Suan. Ramon Alcantara later sought to annul the deed on the basis that he was a minor at the time of execution. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the deed not binding against Ramon due to his minority. However, the Supreme Court reinstated the CFI decision, finding that Ramon was estopped from disavowing the contract due to his misrepresentation of being of legal age at the time of signing. The Supreme Court held that a minor who pretends to be of legal age will be bound by the contract,

    Original Title

    Sia Suan vs. Alcantara (digest)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a deed of sale executed in 1931 conveying land from Ramon Alcantara and others to Sia Suan. Ramon Alcantara later sought to annul the deed on the basis that he was a minor at the time of execution. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the deed not binding against Ramon due to his minority. However, the Supreme Court reinstated the CFI decision, finding that Ramon was estopped from disavowing the contract due to his misrepresentation of being of legal age at the time of signing. The Supreme Court held that a minor who pretends to be of legal age will be bound by the contract,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    701 views2 pages

    Sia Suan vs. Alcantara (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    This case involves a deed of sale executed in 1931 conveying land from Ramon Alcantara and others to Sia Suan. Ramon Alcantara later sought to annul the deed on the basis that he was a minor at the time of execution. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the deed not binding against Ramon due to his minority. However, the Supreme Court reinstated the CFI decision, finding that Ramon was estopped from disavowing the contract due to his misrepresentation of being of legal age at the time of signing. The Supreme Court held that a minor who pretends to be of legal age will be bound by the contract,

    Copyright:

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

    SIA SUAN vs.

    RAMON ALCANTARA
    GR No. L-1720 – March 4, 1950
    Paras

    SUBJECT:

    FACTS:
     On Aug. 3, 1931, a deed of sale was executed by Rufino Alcantara & his sons Damaso &
    Ramon Alcantara coverying to Sia Suan 5 parcels of land.
     Ramon Alcantara was then 17y, 10m, and 22d old.
     On Aug 27, 1931, Gaw Chiao (husband of Sia Suan) received a letter from Francisco
    Alfonso, attorney of Ramon Alcantara, informing Gaw that Ramon was a minor &
    accordingly disavowing the contract.
     After being contacted by Gaw, however, Ramon Alcantara executed an affidavit in the
    office of Jose Gomez, attorney of Gaw, wherein Ramon Alcantara ratified the DoS.
     On said occasion Ramon Alcantara received from Gaw the sum of 500php.
     In the meantime, Sia SUan sold one of the lots to Nicolas Azores.
     On Aug. 8, 1940, an action was institute by Ramon Alcantara in the CFI for the
    annulment of the DoS as regards his undivided share in the 2 parcels of land.
     Said action was against Sia Suan and her husband, Antonio Azores, Damaso Alcantara &
    Rufino Alcantara.

    CFI: absolved the all the defendants.


    CA: reversed the CFI decision on the ground that the DoS is not binding against Ramon
    Alcantara in view of his minority on the date of its execution. The fact that when informed of
    appellant’s minority, the appellees took no steps for 9 years to protect their interest beyond
    requiring the appellant to execute a ratification of the sale while still a minor, strongly indicates
    that the appellees knew of his minority when the deed of sale was executed.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Ramon Alcantara’s execution of the deed of sale is valid despite being a
    minor at the time of its execution.

    HELD:
    Minority of Contracting Party as Ground to Invalidate Contract (Barred by Estoppel)
     
    1. The deed of sale signed by Ramon Alcantara showed that he, like his co-signers (father and
    brother), was then of legal age. There is nothing to indicate that the appellants did not believe
    and rely on such recital of fact.
     
    2. In Mercado vs. Espiritu, the Court held that: "..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…”
     
    3. Under the doctrine, to bind a minor who represents himself to be of legal age, it is not
    necessary for his vendee to actually part with cash, as long as the contract is supported by a valid
    consideration. Since the conveyance of the lands in this case was for and in virtue of a pre-
    existing indebtedness (unquestionably a valid consideration), it should produce its full force and
    effect, in the absence of any other vice that may legally invalidate the same.
     
    4. The circumstance that, about one month after the date of the conveyance, Alcantara informed
    the appellants of his minority, is of no moment, because Alcantara's previous misrepresentation
    had already estopped him from disavowing the contract. Said belated information merely leads to
    the inference that the appellants in fact did not know that the appellee was a minor on the date of
    the contract, and somewhat emphasizes Alcantara’s BF, when it is borne in mind that no sooner
    had he given said information than he ratified his DoS. The effect of estoppel in proper cases is
    unaffected by the promptness with which a notice to disaffirm is made.

    You might also like