NELSON CABALES VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007

FACTS:
In 1964, Rurfino Cabales died leaving behind a parcel of land in Southern Leyte to his
wife, Saturnina and six children, namely, Bonifacio, Rito, Francisco, Alberto, Albino and Lenora.
In 1971, Bonifacio, Alberto and Albino sold the property with the right to repurchase to Dr.
Cayetano Corrompido. In 1972, Alberto died leaving behind his wife and son, Nelson. In 1975,
Bonifacio and Albino tendered their payment while Saturnina paid for the share of her deceased
son, Alberto. Thereafter, Saturnina, and her four children sold the said land to spouses Jesus and
Anunciacion Feliano (Spouses Feliano) for P8,000.00 with clause that the amount of P2,286.00
corresponding and belonging to the Heirs of Alberto and to Rito who are still minors are to be paid
and delivered only to them by Spouses Feliano upon reaching the age of 21. In 1986, Rito received
his share from the proceeds of the sale of the property. In 1988, Nelson learned of the sale from
his uncle, Rito. In 1993, he signified his intention to redeem the property but only filed in 1995.
Spouses Feliano averred that Rito and Nelson are estopped from denying the sale since Rito
already received his share; and Nelson, failed to tender the total amount of the redemption price.
The trial court ruled in favor of Spouses Feliano. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the
decision of the trial court declaring that Nelson is co-owner to the extent of one-seventh (1/7) of
subject but denied his claim for redemption for his failure to tender or consign in court the
redemption money within the period prescribed by law. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale made by Saturnina in behalf of the Rito and Nelson were binding
upon them.

RULING:
The Supreme Court held that for Rito the contract of sale was valid but for Nelson the
contract of sale was void. Rule 96 Sec. 1 of Revised Rule of Court of 1964 provides that the legal
guardian only has the plenary power of administration of the minor's property. It does not include
the power of alienation which needs judicial authority. Thus, when Saturnina, as legal guardian of
Rito, sold the latter's pro-indiviso share in subject land, she did not have the legal authority to do
so. Accordingly, the contract of sale as to the pro-indiviso share of Rito was unenforceable.
However, when Rito acknowledged receipt of the proceeds of the sale, he effectively ratified it
which rendered the sale valid and binding as to him. Nelson who was a minor at the time of the
sale. It was his mother who was his legal guardian. When Saturnina and the others sold the subject
property in its entirety to Spouses Feliano, they only sold and transferred title to their pro-indiviso
shares and not that part which pertained to the Heirs of Alberto. Consequently, Nelson and his
mother retained ownership over their undivided share of the subject property. However, Nelson
can no longer redeem the property since the thirty-day redemption period has expired and thus he
remains as co-owner of the property with the Spouses Feliano. Hence the decision and resolution
of the Court of Appeals are affirmed with modification.