MERCADO v ESPIRITU(1917) 37 FACTS: Domingo Mercado and Josefa Mercado were minors (under the CivilCode), 18 and 19 years

2. Restrictions old respectively, on the date the instrument (sale of land to their uncle) was executed so they CC, Art 6 Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs or seek for annulmentof contract. prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. However, in the deedof sale they stated that they were of legal age at the time they executed and signed it; andthey made the same CC, Art 38 Minority, insanity/imbecility, state of being deaf-mute, prodigality and civil interdiction are mere manifestation before the notary public when therestriction on capacity to act, and do not exempt the document was prepared. incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts of from propertyrelations. wealth does not necessarily imply that the person is incapable of executing a bondsuch as that in question. Capacity to act must be supposed to attach to a person who has not previously been declared incapable, and such capacity is presumed to continue for so long asthe contrary is not proved, that is, at the moment of his acting he was incapable, crazy,insane, or out of his mind; which, in the opinion of the court, has not been proved in thiscase. Art 1390 (1) if one is incapable of VOIDABLE Art 1403 (3) if both is contract, validunless courts says otherwise UNENFORCEABLE unless ratified Art 1397 capacitated partycannot incapable allege the incapacity of other parties Art 1399 restitution not obliged if not benefited ISSUE: WON the dead of sale was invalid because the contractors are minorsHELD: No. The courts have laid down the rule that the sale of real estate, effected by minorswho have already passed the age of puberty and adolescence and are near the adult age, whenthey pretend to have already reached their majority, while in fact, they have not, is valid, andthey cannot be permitted afterwards to excuse themselves from compliance with theobligation assumed by them or seek their annulment. Their misrepresentation estopped themfrom claiming the invalidity of the contract. Art 1390, CC binding at the discretion of theCourt. It does not favor the offender, come to Court with clean hands.
BAMBALAN v MARAMBA FACTS: Bambalans parents Paula Prado and her first husband, Isidro Bambalan Y Calcotura received a loan from Genoveva Muerong and German Maramba in 1915. Calcotura died leaving Bambalan as the sole heir of his estate. In 1922, Muerong and Maramba forced Bambalan, who was at that time, a minor, to sell their land as payment for the loan. Bambalan signed, but said that he was forced because they were threatening his mother with imprisonment. Muerong and Maramba bought Bambalans first cedula to acknowledge the document. ISSUE: Whether sale of the land to Maramaba and Muerong is valid. RATIO: The sale is void as to the plaintiff, because he was a minor at the time of execution. The Doctrine laid down in the case of Mercado vs. Espiritu is not applicable to this case, because the plaintiff did

not pretend to be of age, and the defendant knew him as a minor. Important Statutes: Civil Code, Article 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. Civil code, Art. 1327. The following cannot give consent to a contract: (1) Unemancipated minors; (2) Insane or demented persons, and deaf-mutes who do not know how to write. (1263a) Civil code, Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud SIA SUAN AND GAW CHIAO VS. RAMONALCANTARA by Martin PARAS; MARCH 4, 1950 FACTS: Rufino Alcantara and sons (includingrespondent Ramon) executed a deed of sale dated August 3, 1931, conveying fiveparcels of land to petitioner Sia Suan. A few days later (within the month afterthe sale of the parcels of land), Ramonscounsel wrote to Suans husband, GawChiao, disavowing the contract on theground that Ramon was a minor when thesigning took place. After Gaw Chiao responded to the letter,Ramon went to the office of Gaw Chiaoscounsel to ratify the sale. After ratification, Ramon received Php500.00 from Gaw Chiao, as payment forthe sold parcels of land. Meanwhile, Sia Suan sold the parcels of land to Nicolas Azores; his son Antonio inherited it. NINE YEARS LATER,Ramon filed a case atthe Court of First Instance of Laguna,praying that the deed of sale may beannulled on the ground of his minority atthe time of its sale to Sia Suan and GawChiao; action was denied and Sia Suan,Gaw Chiao, Ramons father and brother,Nicolas and Antonio Azores were absolved. Ramon brought case to the Court of Appeals; CFI Decision Reversed. Deed of sale not binding againstRamon due to his minority at thetime of the sale. His counsels letter to Gaw Chiao isan indication that the sale was notaffirmed; Ramon was thus shieldedfrom laches and estoppels.Sia Suan and Gao Chiao wasnegligent in protecting theirinterests to the property since theydid nothing when they wereinformed of Ramons minority. Delay in filing action for annulmentfiled by Ramon does not bar thesaid action to prosper; may bebarred only when the time periodof filing prescribed by law hasexpired. CA refuses to use the doctrine in Mercado and Mercado vs. Espiritu: Sale of real estate done byminors is VALID

Minors are NOT EXEMPTfrom fulfilling theobligations in the contract Minors are NOT ALLOWED toannul the contract byinvoking that he/she was aminor at the time of thesigning o The only protection utilized by SiaSuan and Gaw Chiao here is theratification done by Ramon o The letter of Ramons counsel dulyinformed them of his minority Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao files petition forcertiorari to the Supreme Court ISSUE/S: Whether or not Ramon Alcantaras execution of the deed of sale is valid,despite being a minor at the time of itsexecution Whether or not Ramon is bound by thedeed of sale, despite his minority at thetime of its execution Whether or not Ramon is allowed to annul the deed of sale HELD/RULING: RELATED PROVISIONS: Art. 1327, NCC: The following cannot giveconsent to a contract:Unemancipated minors; Art. 1390, NCC: The following contracts arevoidable or annullable, even though there mayhave been no damage to the contracting parties: Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract;x xx These contracts are binding, unless they areannulled by a proper action in court. They aresusceptible of ratification . Art. 1403 , NCC: The following contracts areunenforceable, unless they are ratified :x x x(3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving consent to a contract. Art. 1399, NCC: When the defect of the contractconsists in the incapacity of one of the parties,the incapacitated person is not obliged to makeany restitution except insofar as he has beenbenefited by the thing or price received by him. Ramon may not be allowed to executedeed of sale, but due to his act of ratification, the contract was given itsbinding effect. The deed of sale is binding on Ramon, because he ratified it. Ramon is not allowed to annul such deed,because he already ratified it Mercado doctrine is applicable in this case. Ramon may have executed his acts in badfaith; he earned money from Gaw Chiao asa result of the sale and its ratification, yethe summons the courts to annul the salebecause he executed it while still a minor

previous misinterpretation has already estopped him from disavowing thecontract The Court of Appeals said that Ramon maynot be stopped because of the letter, yetthe Supreme Court holds that he isalready stopped by his misrepresentationin the deed of sale, due to his minority The Supreme Court is of the opinion thatSia Suan and Gaw Chiao is herebyabsolved, without incurring any costs ontheir part Under the doctrine laid down by Mercado v Espiritu, herein followed, to bind a minor who represents himself to be oflegal age, it is not necessary for his vendee to actually part with cash, as long as the contract is supported by a validconsideration.The circumstance that about one month after the date of the conveyance, the appellee informed the appeallants of his minority, is of no moment, because appellees previous misrepresentation had already estopped him from disavowing the contract Braganza v. Villa-Abrille 105 Phil 456 Facts: Rosario Braganza and her sons loaned fromDe Villa Abrille P70,000 in Japanese war notes and inconsideration thereof, promised in writing to pay himP10,00 + 2% per annum in legal currency of thePhilippines 2 years after the cessation of the war.Because they have no paid, Abrille is sued them inMarch 1949. The Manila court of first instance and CAheld the family solidarily liable to pay according to thecontract they signed.The family petitioned to reviewthe decision of the CA whereby they were ordered tosolidarily pay De Villa Abrille P10,000 + 2% interest,praying for consideration of the minority of theBraganza sons when they signed the contract. Issue: Whether or not the boys, who were 16 and 18respectively, are to be bound by the contract of loanthey have signed. Held: The SC found that Rosario will still be liable topay her share in the contract because they minority ofher sons does not release her from liability. She isordered to pay 1/3 of P10,000 + 2% interest.However with her sons, the SC reversed the decisionof the CA which found them similarly liable due to theirfailure to disclose their minority. The SC sustainedprevious sources in Jurisprudence in order to hold the infant liable, the fraud must be actual and notconstructive. It has been held that his mere silencewhen making a contract as to his age does notconstitute a fraud which can be made the basis of an action of deceit. The boys, though not bound by the provisions of thecontract, are still liable to pay the actual amount theyhave profited from the loan. Art. 1340 states thateven if the written contract is unenforceable becauseof their non-age, they shall make restitution to theextent that they may have profited by the moneyreceived. In this case, 2/3 of P70,00, which isP46,666.66, which when converted to Philippinemoney is equivalent to P1,166.67. Standard Oil v. ArenasFacts: The SOCNY sued the 5 debtors for payment,including the appellant Vicente Villanueva who actedas surety to the loan. The CFI of Manila ordered thedefendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffsSOCNY. While the judgment was in the course ofexecution, Elisa Villanueva, wife of Vicente

appearedand alleged that her husband was declared insane onJuly 24, 1909, and that on Oct. 11, she wasauthorized by the court as guardian to institute theproper legal proceedings for the annulment of severalbonds given by her husband while in a state ofinsanity. Issues: (1)Whether or not suffering from monomania of wealth necessarily warrants the conclusion that theperson does not have capacity to act. (2) Whether ornot the appellant, was incapable of entering intocontract at the time the bond was executed onDecember 15, 1908. Held: The court affirmed the trial court decision thatVillanueva possessed the capacity to act. The SCheld that there is no evidence to warrant theconclusion, in a judicial decision, that a personsuffering from monomania of wealth is really insaneand therefore is deranged and incapable of bindinghimself in a contract. From the testimony of his wife,it seemed that Vicente has the liberty to go whereverhe wished, that he had property of his own and wasnot deprived of its management, as well as the factthat he had never squandered any large sum ofmoney. As for the 2 nd issue, there was no direct proof thatshowed that at the date of the giving of the bond,December 15, 1908, the appellant was incapable ofacting because of insanity. The witnesses who asphysicians, testified that they observed insane periodsin Villanueva twice prior to 1903, once on 1908, butnone at the time of the execution of the said bond onDecember 15, 1908. It was also shown that the wifenever before sought to legally deprive her husbandmanagement over his estate knowing full well that hewas insane U.S. v. Vaquilar

Facts: Evaristo Vaquilar was found guilty of killing his wife and his daughter, as well as injuring other persons with a bolo. Eyewitnesses testified that the defendant appeared to be insane prior to the commission of the crimes. They also testified that the appellant was complaining of pains in his head and stomach prior to the killing. The witnesses evidence for insanity include: appellants eyes were very big and red with his sight penetrating at the time he was killing his wife. he looked at me he was crazy because if he was not, he wouldnt have killed his family

at the moment of cutting those people, he looked like a madman; crazy because he would cut anybody at random sister said, then he pursued me.he must have been crazy because he cut me

Issue: Whether or not these pieces of evidence are sufficient to declare the accused as insane, therefore exempt from criminal liability. Held: The evidence is insufficient to declare him insane. The appellants conduct was consistent with the acts of an enraged criminal, not of a person with an unsound mind at the time he committed the crimes. The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is insane. The

popular meaning of crazy is not synonymous with the legal terms insane. The conduct of the appellant after he was confined in jail is not inconsistent with the actions of a sane person (not saying a word in the cell, crying out loud at night) who has reflected and felt remorse after the commission of the crime. The court further held that mere mental depravity, or moral insanity which results not from any disease of the mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from criminal responsibility. In the absence of proof that the defendant had lost his reason or became demented after a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime, it is presumed that he was in a normal state of mind.
People vs Rafanan Estelita Ronaya was only 14 yrs old and was hired as a housekeeper by the mother of the accused. Accused Policarpio Rafanan and hisfamily lives with his mother. On march 16 1976 in the evening , afterdinner, Estelita was sent to help the accused in the store ;at 11pm, the accused called Estelita to help him close the door of the store andhe suddenly pulled her inside and said come, let us have sexual intercourse to which Estelita refused. Despite the struggle of Estelita, Policarpio was able to rape her and told her not totell anyone or else he would kill her. But somehow , the family of the accused was able to find out which made Estelita leave the house. During trial, the accused pleaded notguilty but in the end he was convicted. Issue: Whether or not the accused wasinsane during the commission of the crime? Held:Schizophrenia is not an exemptingcircumstance. If there was impairment of themental faculties , such impairments was not socomplete as to deprive the accused of intelligence or the consciousness of his acts.The testimonies negates completedestruction of intelligence at the time of thecommission of the crime. The fact that theappellant threatened Estelita with death revealsto the court that the accused was aware of hisact.The law presumes every man to be sane . Aperson accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of insanity andthe accused was not able to prove it.Although it is not a exemptingcircumstance under art 12 of RPC, it is amitigating circumstances under the art 13 of RPC.Minor Standard of Legal insanity by People v Formigones (2 distinguishable tests):i. Test of cognition complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal] act.ii. Test of violation that there be a total deprivation of the will. The law presumes every man to be sane. A person accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmativeallegation of insanity