You are on page 1of 2

Submitted by: SALTING, JESSICA J.

ROSARIO L. DE BRAGANZA, ET AL.,


petitioners
FERNANDO F. DE VILLA ABRILLE,
respondent
G.R. No. L-12471 April 13, 1959
Topic: Restrictions on Capacity to Act: Minority
Issue: WON the minority of the petitioners absolve them of their civil liability from the
contract they made.
Held: Although the promissory note cannot be enforced, due to the minors incapacity of
binding themselves, they still hold monetary responsibility. In accordance with the
provisions of CC, even if their written contract is unenforceable because of non-age,
they shall make restitution to the extent that they have profited by the money they
received (Art. 1340).
G.R. No. L-23002

July 31, 1967

CONCEPCION FELIX VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ, plaintiff-appellant,


vs.
GERONIMO RODRIGUEZ., ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Topic: Defect of Consent; No Consideration Paid
Held: Duress being merely a vice or defect of consent, an action based upon it must be
brought within four years after it has ceased; and the present action was instituted only
in 1962, 28 years after the intimidation is claimed to have occurred and no less than 9
years after the supposed culprit died. On top of it, appellant entered into a series of
subsequent transaction with appellees that confirmed the contracts that she now tries to
set aside. Therefore the cause of action is clearly barred.
That the prices were not paid does not make the sales inexistent for want of causa. The
consideration need not pass from one to the other at the time the contract is entered
into. The consideration need not be paid at the time of the promise. The one promise is
a consideration for another.
Appellants inaction to enforce her right, for 28 years, cannot be justified by the lame
excuse that she assumed that the transfer was valid. Knowledge of the effect of that

transaction would have been obtained by the exercise of diligence. Ignorance which is
the effect of inexcusable negligence, it has been said, is no excuse for laches.

G.R. No. 114950 December 19, 1995


RAFAEL G. SUNTAY, substituted by his heirs, namely: ROSARIO, RAFAEL, JR.,
APOLINARIO, RAYMUND, MARIA VICTORIA, MARIA ROSARIO and MARIA
LOURDES, all surnamed SUNTAY, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FEDERICO C. SUNTAY, respondents.
Topic: Intention of parties as primary consideration in a contract
Held:Though the notarization of the deed of sale in question vests in its favor the
presumption of regularity, it is not the intention nor the function of the notary public to
validate and make binding an instrument never, in the first place, intended to have any
binding legal effect upon the parties thereto. The intention of the parties still and always
is the primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract.
the deed of sale executed by Federico in favor of his now deceased nephew, Rafael, is
absolutely simulated and fictitious and, hence, null and void, said parties having entered
into a sale transaction to which they did not intend to be legally bound.