Case Digest - Braganza Vs Abrille

Rosario L. De Braganza, et al., Petitioners, vs. Fernando F.
De Villa Abrille, Respondent
G.R. No. L-12471 April 13, 1959
Doctrine:
1. 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.
(Art 1327 Civil Code)
2. The fraud of which an infant may be held liable to one who contracts with him in the belief
that he is of full age must be actual, not constructive, and mere failure of the infant to disclose
his age is not sufficient.
3. All persons who are authorized in this Code to obligate themselves, may enter into a contract
of sale, saving the modifications contained in the following articles. Where necessaries are
those sold and delivered to a minor or other person without capacity to act, he must pay a
reasonable price therefor. Necessaries are those referred to in article 290 (Art 1489 Civil Code)
Facts:
Rosario and her sons Rodolfo and Guillermo, received from Fernando, as a loan, on October 30,
1944, P70,000 in Japanese war notes and in consideration thereof, promised in writing (Exhibit
A) to pay him P10,000 "in legal currency of the P. I. two years after the cessation of the present
hostilities or as soon as International Exchange has been established in the Philippines" plus 2%
per annum. Because payment had not been made, Fernando sued them in March 1949. In their
answer before the Manila CFI, petitioners claimed to have received P40,000 only. They also
averred that Guillermo and Rodolfo were minors when they signed promissory note Exhibit A.
After hearing, said CFI rendered judgment, requiring petitioners to solidarily pay Fernando the
sum of P10,000 plus 2 % interest from October 30, 1944. CA affirmed the decision.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Rosario de Braganza will benefit from the minority of her co-debtors
2. Whether or not Rodolfo and Guillermo de Braganza are bounded by the promissory note
considering they were minors, with the age of 18 and 16 respectively, when they signed it
Ruling:
1. Yes. There can be no question about the responsibility of Mrs. Rosario L. Braganza because
the minority of her co-debtors / co-signers does note release her from liability, since it is a
personal defense of these minors. However, such defense will benefit her to the extent of the
shares for which such minors may be responsible.
2. No. The Court did not agree to the ruling of the CA finding Rodolfo and Guillermo liable. The
minors' failure to disclose their minority in the promissory note they signed, does not follow
as a legal proposition, that they will not be permitted thereafter to assert it. They had no
juridical duty to disclose their inability. The Mercado case cited by CA is different because
the document signed therein by the minor stated he was of age; Exhibit A contained no such
statement. The Court held that being minors, Rodolfo and Guillermo could not be legally
bound by their signatures in Exhibit A.
Nevertheless, Rodolfo and Guillermo may not be entirely absolved from monetary
responsibility. In accordance with the provisions of Civil Code, even if their written contact is
unenforceable because of non-age, they shall make restitution to the extent that they have
profited by the money they received. There is testimony that the funds delivered to them were
used for their support during the Japanese occupation. Such being the case, it is but fair to
hold that they had profited to the extent of the value of such money. In October 1944, P40.00
Japanese notes were equivalent to P1 of current Philippine money. Wherefore, as the share
of these minors was 2/3 of P70,000 of P46,666.66, they should now return P1,166.67.
Accordingly, the appealed decision should be modified in the sense that Rosario Braganza
shall pay 1/3 of P10,000 i.e., P3,333.334 plus 2% interest from October 1944; and Rodolfo
and Guillermo Braganza shall pay jointly the total amount of P1,166.67 plus 6% interest
beginning March 7, 1949, when the complaint was filed.

Case Digest - Braganza Vs Abrille

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Braganza Vs Abrille

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Braganza Vs Abrille

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rosario L. De Braganza, et al., Petitioners, vs. Fernando F.

De Villa Abrille, Respondent

G.R. No. L-12471 April 13, 1959

1. The following cannot give consent to a contract:

You might also like