ANGELES. Joshua William Francis V.

15-0629

ROSARIO L. DE BRAGANZA, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.
FERNANDO F. DE VILLA ABRILLE, respondent.

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

BENGZON, J.:

FACTS:

Rosario Braganza and her two sons Rodolfo and Guillermo filed a petition for review of the
decision of Court of Appeals whereby they were required solidarily to pay Fernando Abrille the sum of
P10,000 plus 2% interest from receipt of loan dated Oct 30, 1944. The three received from Fernando Abrille
a loan of P70,000 in Japanese war notes, and the former promised in writing (Exhibit A) to pay P10,000 in
legal currency of the Phil. Islands 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. Abrille sued them in
March 1949 for payment had not been made.

Answer of the Defendant was that they only received P40,000 instead of P70,000 and that her two
sons were minors when they signed the promissory notes. Court rendered judgment, and affirmed by the
appellate court, in accordance with the terms previously described. As to the minority defense, that could
only be availed to such extent that the minors benefitted from it, and it is not a personal defense (Article
1148 of Civil Code). It was clear that the two were 16 and 18 respectively at the time of the signing of the
promissory note. However, CA ruled that they are solidarily liable as they did not appraise the creditor of
their incapacity, and citing the case of Mercado, stating that "when minor, like in the instant case, pretended
to be of legal age, in fact they were not, they will not later on be permitted to excuse themselves from the
fulfillment of the obligation".

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the minors were guilty of active misrepresentation.

RULING:

No, there was only passive misrepresentation. Facts in the Mercado case do not align with the
aforementioned facts. 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 jointly5 to the same creditor the total amount of P1,166.67 plus 6% interest beginning March 7,
1949, when the complaint was filed.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The minors may still assert their minority, even though they failed to disclose their incapacity, for
they were not juridically required to disclose so. According to Corpuz Juris Secundum, 43 p. 206, In order
to hold infant liable, however, the fraud must be actual and not constructive. It has been held that his mere
silence when making a contract as to age does not constitute a fraud which can be made the basis of an
action of decit. Additionally, 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. (27 American Jurisprudence, p. 819.)

The Mercado case is different for there was a stipulation that the minor was of age. In the instant
case, there was no stipulation to that effect. As such, the minors were guilty only of constructive
misrepresentation, and shall therefore be not demanded the whole amount as agreed upon, but only to such
extent that they benefitted, which was amply and authoritatively established in the Ballantine Schedule.
There is testimony that the funds delivered to them by Villa Abrille 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, amounting to P1,166.67 from 2/3 of the principal Japanese notes. Rosaria Braganza
is liable for the 1/3 of the promised obligation, as the obligation of the two minors was deducted.