RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS  The term “unenforceable” is used, as
distinguished from ‘voidable.’ The latter
Four Kinds of Defective Contracts
There are four kinds of defective contracts
(contracts which may be invalidated):
(a) rescissible
(b) voidable
(c) unenforceable
(d) void (which may be inexistent or illegal)
 Arranged in the order of decreasing validity.
NOTE: In general —
(a) The rescissible contract is valid until
rescinded; there is a sort of extrinsic defect
consisting of an economic damage or lesion.
(b) The voidable contract is valid till annulled.
It can be annulled. It cannot be annulled,
however, if there has been a ratification. The
defect is more or less intrinsic, as in the case
of vitiated consent.
(c) The unenforceable contract cannot be
sued upon or enforced, unless it is ratified. In
a way, it may be considered as a validable
transaction, that is, it has no effect now, but
it may be effective upon ratification.
NOTE: On the other hand, a voidable
contract has effect now, but it may be
invalidated; hence, it is deemed valid unless
annulled.
(d) The void contract is one that has no effect
at all; it cannot be ratified or validated.
 “The first class, rescissible, remains as
they are found in the old Code. All the
essential requisites of a contract exist
and the contract is valid, but by reason
of injury or damage to third persons,
such as creditors, the contract may be
rescinded.’’
 “The second kind, voidable contracts, are
specifically set forth in Art. 1390 of the
new Civil Code.’’
are binding, unless annulled by proper
action in court, while the former cannot
be sued upon or enforced unless they
are ratified.
 As regard the degree of defectiveness,
voidable contracts are farther away from
absolute nullity than unenforceable
contracts. In other words, an
unenforceable contract occupies an
intermediate ground between voidable
and void contracts.’’
 “Lastly, there are the void or inexistent
contracts. They are absolutely null and
void.’
ARTICLE 1380
‘Rescission’
 “Rescission is a process designated to
render inefficacious a contract validly
entered into and normally binding, by
reason of external conditions, causing an
economic prejudice to a party or to his
creditors.”
 “Rescission is a remedy granted by law
to the contracting parties both to
contracting parties and to third persons
in order to secure reparation of damages
caused them by a contract, even if the
contract be valid, by means of the
restoration of things to their condition
prior to the celebration of said contract.”
 It is a relief to protect one of the parties
or a third person from all injury and
damages which the contract Art. 1380
Requisites for Rescission
(a) There must be at the beginning either a
valid or a voidable contract (not a void one);
(b) But there is an economic or financial
prejudice to someone (a party or a third
person);
(c) Requires mutual restitution. is the will of the parties that constitutes the
basis, whereas in rescission (properly called),
Difference between recission in Article 1191 it is the law that constitutes the basis.
and Article 130
(a) The rescission mentioned in Art. 1380 of Noble v. City of Manila
the New Civil Code. This is, properly FACTS: The City of Manila has a contract with
speaking, “rescission.” Noble stipulating that the City would buy a
(b) The rescission mentioned in Art. 1191 of certain piece of land. It was also agreed that
the New Civil Code. Although in this article, while the purchase price was not yet paid,
the new Code used the term “rescission,” the the City would occupy the land as a tenant
term, properly speaking, should be and would pay rentals therefor. Later, the
“resolution.” City refused to pay the purchase price
asserting that it was excessive considering
Two Kinds of Rescission the amount it had already paid by way of
rentals, and that therefore the contract
Rescission in General Rescission under should be rescinded because the contract
(Article 1380) Article 1191 was far more favorable for Noble than for
(Resolution) the City of Manila.
a) is based on lesion a) is based on non- Issue: Should rescission be granted?
or fraud upon performance or non- HELD: No, rescission should not be granted.
creditors; fulfillment of the That the contract conferred more favors
b) here, the action is obligation; upon one party than upon another is not a
instituted by either b) here, the action ground for rescission. Besides, even with the
of the contracting may be instituted rentals already paid, the purchase price
parties or by third only by the injured cannot be considered excessive because the
persons; party to the contract; rentals, together with the price, represented
c) here, the courts c) here, in some merely a reasonable profit. Of course, even
cannot grant a period cases, the courts may had the profit been excessive, the
or term within which grant a term; excessiveness of the price is by itself not a
to comply; d) here, non- ground for rescission because the only
d) here, non- performance by the grounds for rescission are those enumerated
performance by the other party is by the law.
other party is important.
immaterial. Rescissible Contract Is Not a Void Contract
 A rescissible contract is not void; it is
Mutual Dissent valid until rescinded. Thus, in the
Query: Suppose the parties to a contract meantime, it can convey title. Moreover,
mutually agreed to cancel the contract, is this a rescissible contract cannot be attacked
“rescission” properly so-called? collaterally (incidentally) upon the
ANS.: No. Of course, in a loose sense grounds for rescission in the course of a
“rescission” may be used here. But strictly land registration case. (A direct action to
speaking, this is “mutual backing out,” and rescind is required.) To avoid injustice,
not the rescission referred to in Art. 1380 of however, the court may allow the
the new Civil Code. In mutual withdrawal, it aggrieved party to register his
 reservation of the right to rescind. The
reservation may in fact be noted on the
certificates of title.
Fictitious Contracts Cannot Be Rescinded
Q: A party brought an action to rescind a
fictitious contract. Is rescission the proper
remedy?
A: No, rescission is not the proper remedy
because while the contract here is fictitious
and, therefore, null and void, rescission
presupposes a valid contract.
Extrajudicial Rescission
 A charter party may be rescinded
extrajudicially. A judicial action for the
rescission of a contract is not necessary
where the contract provides that it may
be revoked and cancelled for violation of
any of its terms and conditions, “without
noting any protest and without
interference by any court or any
formality whatsoever and without
prejudice the Owners may otherwise
have on the Charterers under the
Charter.”
Right of First Refusal
The prevailing doctrine is that a right of fi rst
refusal means identity of terms and
conditions to be offered to the lessee and all
other prospective buyers. And a contract of
sale entered into in violation of a right of first
refusal of another person, while valid, is
rescissible.
ARTICLE 1381
First Case — In Behalf of Wards
(a) Lesion — damage or injury to the party
asking for rescission (generally, disparity
between the price and the value).
(b) Modern legislation generally does not
favor rescission on account of lesion,
because “goods do not have a fixed true
value; value is always variable and
fluctuating, being a function of supply and
demand. The modern codes tend to view
lesion of certain proportions (1/4, 1/2, etc.)
as merely raising a presumption of undue
influence that vitiates consent and renders
the contract voidable whenever the lesion is
coupled with exploitation by the others.
Indeed, mere inadequacy of price, unless
shocking to the conscience, is not a sufficient
ground for setting aside a sale, if there is no
showing that, in the event of a resale, a
better price can be obtained
(c) Effect of Contracts Entered into in Behalf
of Ward
1) If an act of ownership, court approval is
required; otherwise, contract is
unenforceable (Art. 1403), whether there is
lesion or not.
2) If merely an act of administration —
a) if with court approval — valid,
regardless of lesion. (Art. 1386).
b) if without court approval —
rescissible, if lesion is more than one-
fourth. (Art. 1381, No. 1).
NOTE: Example of act of ownership: sale or
mortgage of minor’s land. Example of act of
administration: buying of fertilizers for land
cultivation, or materials for repair.
Second Case — In Representation of
Absentees
Same comment as in the first case.
NOTE: Another contract which may be
rescinded on the ground of lesion is a
partition of inheritance, when the lesion is
1/4 or more for one heir. (Art. 1098, Civil
Code).]
Third Case — “Those Undertaken in Fraud of
Creditors, When the Latter Cannot in Any
Other Manner Collect Claims Due Them”
(a) The action to rescind contracts made in
fraud of creditors is called “accion pauliana.”
(b) Requisites before accion pauliana can be
brought:
1) There must be a creditor who became
such PRIOR to the contract sought to be
rescinded (whether the party asking for
rescission is a judgment creditor already
or not, is likewise immaterial).
2) There must be an alienation made
subsequent to such credit.
3) The party alienating must be in BAD
FAITH (that is, he knew that damages
would be caused his creditors whether
or not he intended to cause such
damage).
4) There must be no other remedy for the
prejudiced creditor — “inability to collect the
claims due them.”
(Thus, rescission is merely a subsidiary
remedy).
NOTE: An action to rescind may be brought
even if the debtor has not been judicially
declared insolvent and even if the creditor
has not yet brought an action to collect his
credit. Since the law makes no distinction,
both secured and unsecured creditors may
bring the action; the important thing is that
they be prejudiced.
NOTE: Generally, the party desiring to
rescind must show that the conveyance or
alienation was fraudulent. He has the burden
of proof, except in the cases when there is a
presumption of fraud.
Problem:
To defraud his creditor, A sold his house to X.
When however the creditor wanted to
collect his credit, somebody lent A enough
money. Should the sale of the house still be
rescinded?
ANS.: No, it should not be rescinded, because
here the creditor can collect the claim due
him.
Fourth Case — Things in Litigation
(a) Example:
A sues B for recovery of a diamond ring.
Pendente lite, B sells the ring to C without
the approval of A or of the court. The sale to
C is rescissible at A’s instance in case A wins
in the original litigation, unless C is in good
faith.
(b) The property is said to be in litigation
here after the defendant has received the
service of summons.
(c) To protect himself, the plaintiff must
register his claim in the registry of property,
pending litigation, if the suit is about real
property. This is the notice of lis pendens.
The purpose is to give notice to the whole
world. If personal property is involved, the
property may be levied upon by a writ of
preliminary attachment; or else, it may be
placed in the hands of a receiver.
Mortera v. Martinez
FACTS: A piece of land was the subject of a
litigation between Martinez and the
Municipality of San Pablo. After the case had
been decided in favor of Martinez, he sold it
to another.
Issue: Is the sale rescindable on the ground
that the property was in litigation?
HELD: No, the sale cannot be rescinded.
True, it had been the subject of a litigation,
but that litigation had already been decided
in favor of Martinez prior to the sale.
Fifth Case — Other Instances
Examples are agreements referred to in Arts.
1098 (partition), 1189 (result of
deterioration), 1526 and 1534 (right given to
an unpaid seller), and 1539 (sale of real
estate) of the Civil Code.
 ARTICLE 1382
Premature Payments Made in a State of
Insolvency
Two requisites are essential under this
Article:
(a) the debtor-payer must have been
insolvent (the insolvency need not be a
judicially declared one);
(b) the debt was not yet due and
demandable.
(NOTE: Both conditions are required;
otherwise, Art. 1382 cannot apply.)
(NOTE: Art. 1382 does not exactly speak of a
contract; it refers to a payment; hence, it is
not included under Art. 1381.)
Asia Banking Corporation v. Corcuera
FACTS: The Lichauco Corporation owed
Noble Jose P70,000. The Corporation was
involvent and although the debt was not yet
enforceable, the Corporation gave to Noble
Jose a deed of sale to one of its properties
(the value of which was much greater than
the debt) in payments for the debt. At the
same time, the Corporation paid off a certain
Corcuera its debt of P24,000 by giving him a
piece of land. This latter debt was already
due and demandable at the time payment
was made.
Issue: Are the two transactions rescindable?
HELD: The first is rescindable because it was
made in a state of insolvency for an
obligation to whose fulfi llment the debtor
could not be compelled at the time it was
effected. But the second debt is not
rescindable because at the time of payment,
even if the Corporation was already
insolvent, the debt was already due, owing
and enforceable.
ARTICLE 1383
Rescission Not a Principal Remedy
Rescission is not a principal remedy; it is
only subsidiary and may only be availed of by
the injured party if it has no other legal
means of seeking redress or reparation for
the damages caused. If, therefore, it is found
out that the debtor has no other property
than that which is the object of the
rescindable contract, rescission may merely
be applied provided that all the essential
requisites for rescission are present.
In one case, the Supreme Court held that
when a creditor seeks to set aside a contract
as fraudulent, he must prove first that he
really is a creditor, and secondly, that he
cannot collect his debt in any other way.
Contreras and Gingco v. China Banking Corp.
FACTS: A and B, a creditor of the former
because of certain debts, were declared by
the court to be the co-owners of a certain
real property. The case was appealed.
Pending judgment, A mortgaged the whole
property to a Bank to get some money. Later,
the decision regarding co-ownership was
affirmed.
Issue: May B, who has vainly exhausted other
means, now ask for the rescission of the
mortgage?
HELD: That part of the mortgage referring to
the half share of B need not be rescinded
since it is already void, considering the fact
that A had no right to make the mortgage.
That part of the mortgage referring to the
half share of A may be rescinded because it
was done in fraud of him, and there is no
other way to collect his credit.
 ARTICLE 1384
Partial Rescission
This is a new provision of the New Civil Code,
making possible partial rescission, since after
all, the only purpose of rescission is to repair
or cover the damages caused. Complete
rescission will not therefore be allowed, if it
is not justified by the circumstances of the
case. Insofar as it is not rescinded, the
alienation is valid.
Person Benefited
Only the creditor who has asked for
rescission, not the other creditors, benefi ts
from the rescission.
ARTICLE 1385
Necessity of Mutual Restitution
The obligation of restitution does not
obviously apply to creditors who seek to
impugn fraudulent transactions of their
debtors. The obligation of mutual restitution
applies to OTHERS so that the status quo may
be restored.
Requisites Before the Action for Rescission
Can Be Brought
(a) Generally, the plaintiff must be able to
RETURN what has been received by virtue of
the rescissible contract. (Exception:
prejudiced creditors.)
(b) The thing object of the contract is not in
the legal possession of third persons in good
faith.
(NOTE: Example of legal possession: registration in
the Registry of Property.)
(NOTE: In order that the property be not taken
away from a third person, said person must not
only be in legal possession; he must also be in good
faith. Good faith alone, however, without legal
possession is not sufficient.)
(c) There must be no other legal remedy.
(Art. 1383, Civil Code)
(d) The action must be brought within the
proper prescriptive period. (See Art. 1389,
Civil Code).
Illustrative Questions
(a) What should be returned in rescinding a
contract?
ANS.:
1) The object of the contract, with its fruits,
must be returned.
2) The price, with its interest, must be
returned.
(b) A bought real property from B. A brought
action to rescind the contract on the ground
of non-delivery of the property. Does B have
to give also the fruits received in the
meantime?
ANS.: No, the fruits received need not be
given to A because the right takes place only
when “delivery of the thing sold has been
made.”
(c) A sold to B a piece of land in fraud of his
(A’s) creditors. B took legal possession. If no
other means are found to exact the
satisfaction of the credits owing the
creditors, may the sale to B be rescinded?
ANS.: It depends upon whether B was in
good faith or in bad faith.
1) If B was in good faith, rescission cannot
take place, because the object of the
contract is legally in the possession of a third
person who did not act in bad faith.
2) If B was in bad faith, rescission is proper.
(d) To defraud his creditors A sold to B a
piece of land. B is an innocent purchaser in
good faith, who takes legal possession of the
land. Since the creditors cannot rescind the
contract, what is their remedy?
ANS.: Their remedy in this case would be to
demand indemnity for damages from the
person causing the loss.
(e) To really protect himself against
rescission, what should an innocent third
party, who in good faith purchases real
property, do after having acquired the
property?
ANS.: He must register the realty purchased
in the registration office.
(f) To defraud his creditor, A sold his
property to B (who is in good faith). Later B
sold the property to C, who is in bad faith.
May the creditor rescind, although the
property is now in the possession of C?
ANS.: No, for it does not matter whether C is
in good or bad faith, since he obtained the
same from B who is in good faith. It is B’s
good faith that is important.
ARTICLE 1386
Rescission referred to in Nos. 1 and 2 of
Article 1381 shall not take place with respect
to contracts approved by the courts.
ARTICLE 1387
Presumptions of Fraud
This Article establishes presumptions of fraud
in the case of:
(a) gratuitous alienations;
(b) onerous alienations.
Gratuitous Alienations
(a) Presumed fraudulent — when the debtor
did not reserve sufficient property to pay all
debts contracted BEFORE the donation.
(b) Example:
A donated his land to B. Before the time he
made the donation, he had several debts, but
he did not reserve enough property to pay all
these debts. Instead, he made the donation.
Is the donation presumed fraudulent.
ANS.: Yes, the donation is presumed in fraud
of creditors. But, of course, this presumption
may be rebutted by adequate proof.
(c) Problem:
A made a donation to B. Later A contracted
several debts. What A has left as assets are
much less than his present liabilities. May the
donation to B be rescinded?
ANS.: No, because the debts here of A were
incurred after the donation had been made.
As a matter of fact, the presumption of fraud
does not even arise in this case. However,
under the doctrine of “anticipatory fraud,”
rescission may still prosper if it can be shown
that the donation had been deliberately
made beforehand to avoid the payment of
debts still to be contracted.
Onerous Alienations
(a) Presumed fraudulent — when made by
persons:
1) against whom some judgment has
been rendered in any instance (thus,
even if not yet a final judgment);
2) or against whom some writ of
attachment has been issued.
(b) Example:
After a judgment had been rendered against
him, A sold his property to B. Is the sale
presumed fraudulent?
ANS.: Yes, the sale here is presumed
fraudulent because it was made after a
judgment had been issued against A. Upon
the other hand, if the sale had been made
BEFORE the judgment, the presumption of
fraud cannot apply. This is so even if,
unknown to the buyer, the suit had already
been brought, but STILL PENDING as long as
of course no attachment had been issued.
(c) The decision or attachment need not refer
to the property alienated, and need not have
been obtained by the party seeking the
rescission. (Art. 1387, Civil Code).
(d) Example:
A brought an action against B, his debtor. A
won. After judgment, B sold his property to
C. X, another creditor of B, wants to rescind
this sale to C. Both C and B claim that X does
not have the right to interfere because, after
all, it was A, not X, who had won a judgment
against B. Are C and B justified?
ANS.: No, C and B are not justified. It is true
that it was A, not X, who won the judgment,
but this is immaterial since the law says that
the decision need not have been obtained by
the party seeking the rescission.
(e) Another example:
In a case, A’s house at 11 Leveriza Street was
attached by the court. A sold his house at 22
San Miguel Street to B, after the attachment
on the fi rst house had been made. C, a
creditor of A, now says that the sale is
presumed fraudulent. A counters by saying
that there is no such presumption because
after all the house which had been attached
was not the one sold to B. Is A justified?
ANS.: No, A is not justifi ed. It is true that the
house he sold had not been levied upon or
attached, but the fact remains that A is a
person against whom some writ of
attachment has been issued. The law says
that the attachment need not refer to the
property alienated.
Badges of Fraud
There are some circumstances indicating that
a certain alienation has been made in fraud
of creditors. These are called BADGES OF
FRAUD.
“In the consideration of whether or not
certain transfers were fraudulent, courts
have laid down certain rules by which the
fraudulent character of the transaction may
be determined. The following are some of
the circumstances attending sales which have
been denominated by the courts as badges
of fraud:
1) The fact that the consideration of the
conveyance is fictitious or inadequate;
2) A transfer made by a debtor after suit has
been begun and while it is pending against
him;
3) A sale upon credit by an insolvent debtor;
4) The transfer of all or nearly all of his
property by a debtor, especially when he is
insolvent or greatly embarrassed fi nancially;
5) Evidence of large indebtedness or
complete insolvency;
6) The fact that the transfer is made between
father and son (when this fact is considered
together with preceding circumstances);
7) The failure of the vendee to take exclusive
possession of all the property.
Alpuerto v. Perez Pastor and Roa
FACTS: Pending the termination of a court
litigation with him as defendant, a person
secretly sold to his son-in-law substantially all
his property for less than half the value of
said properties. Later, when the case was
decided the plaintiff- creditor could not
recover anything from the defendant. Hence,
he brought an action for the rescission of the
sale. The defense stated that the transaction
had been made prior to the promulgation of
the decision, and that therefore there can be
no presumption of “fraud of creditors.
Issue: May the sale be rescinded?
HELD: Yes, the sale may be rescinded. Aside
from the presumptions given by the Code
regarding fraudulent conveyances, the
designs to defraud creditors may be proved,
as it has been proved in this case, in any
other manner recognized by the law of
evidence. Said the Supreme Court: “The
purchaser did not satisfactorily prove that he
was a purchaser in good faith. The secrecy of
the purported sale and the relation of kinship
existing between the parties are
circumstances indicative of collusion.”
NOTE: Relationship alone does not by itself
constitute a badge of fraud.

Rule in Case of Registered Lands
Abaya v. Enriquez, et al.
Illustrating the principle that the
presumption of fraud established in Art.
1387 does not apply to registered lands
under the Torrens System IF the judgment
or attachment made is not also registered.
FACTS: Enriquez owed Abaya a sum of
money evidenced by a promissory note.
Abaya obtained a judgment, and part
payment was made by Enriquez, leaving the
judgment partially unsatisfied. Subsequently,
Enriquez sold two registered parcels of land
to the spouses Artemio and Nera Jongco,
complete strangers to them. The judgment in
favor of Abaya and the writ of execution
issued were never annotated at the back of
the Transfer Certificate of Title to the land.
Abaya assailed the validity of the alienation
on the ground that same has been made in
fraud of his rights, the transaction having
been effected after a judgment and an
attachment had been issued. Thus, he sued
for the rescission of the sale.
HELD: The rescission will not prosper, for the
presumption established in Art. 1387 does
not apply in this case for two reasons: Firstly,
the spouses Jongco had no complicity at all in
the fraud imputed to Enriquez; secondly, the
encumbrance of the judgment and the
attachment, not having been registered and
annotated on the certificate, cannot
prejudice an innocent purchaser for value of
registered land. The Civil Code must yield to
the Mortgage and to the Registration Laws,
which are special laws.
Necessity of a Direct Action for Rescission
To defraud his creditors, A sold real property
to B. B now seeks to register the land. X, a
creditor, seeks to prevent the registration on
the ground that the transaction is
rescindable. Despite X’s objection, may the
land be registered in B’s name?
ANS.: Yes. X should have brought first the
action for rescission. Before a sale is
rescinded, it is valid, and its validity cannot
be attacked collaterally (in a proceeding
different from an action to rescind) in a
proceeding like land registration.
Presumption of Validity
A gratuitous conveyance or donation validly
executed is, on its face (prima facie),
presumed valid and good as between the
parties. It cannot be declared fraudulent and,
therefore, subject to rescission unless it can
be shown that at the time of the execution of
the conveyance, there was a creditor or
creditors whom said transaction may affect
adversely.
Fraud Alone Not Sufficient for Rescission
Q.: Just because a contract is made to
defraud creditors, does this necessarily mean
that it can be rescinded?
A.: No, for after all the transferee may have
been in good faith and is now in legal
possession of the property.
ARTICLE 1388
Effect of Bad Faith
(a) The acquirer must return or indemnify.
(b) “Due to any cause” includes a fortuitous
event.
(c) Example:
To defraud his creditors, X sold his house to
Y, who knew of X’s purpose. If the sale is
rescinded, Y must indemnify, even if the
house be destroyed by a fortuitous event,
but only if X himself cannot pay. (Remember
that rescission is merely a secondary remedy
available only when X cannot pay.)
Subsequent Transfers
(a) If the first transferee is in good faith, the
good or bad faith of the next transferee is
not important.
(b) If the first transferee is in bad faith, the
next transferee is liable only if he is also in
bad faith.
(c) Example:
A, in fraud of creditors, sold his house to B,
who is in bad faith. B in turn alienated it in
favor of C, who later sold it to D. Both C and
D were also in bad faith. The contract is
rescinded but the house is destroyed. Who, if
any, are liable for damages?
ANS.: B is liable first. If he cannot pay, then C
will be liable. If C cannot pay, D will be liable.
The law says that “if there are two or more
alienations, the first acquirer shall be liable
first, and so on successively.”
Concept of “Bad Faith”
“Bad Faith” has been defined as a state of
mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design or with some motive or self-interest
or ill-will or for an ulterior purpose, and
implies a conscious and intentional design to
do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or
moral obliquity.
ARTICLE 1389
Prescriptive Period for Rescission
(a) General rule — 4 years from the date the
contract was entered into.
(b) Exceptions:
1) persons under guardianship — 4 years
from termination of incapacity
2) absentees — 4 years from the time the
domicile is known
(2) Examples
(a) Five years after a rescindable contract
was made, action was brought for its
rescission. The person who asked for the
rescission was neither a ward nor an
absentee at the time of the transaction of
the rescindable contract. Will rescission still
be allowed?
ANS.: No, the rescission will no longer be
allowed because the action has already
prescribed. “The action to claim rescission
must be commenced within four years.”
(b) At the time he was 12 years old, A was
under a guardian who sold, in behalf of the
ward but without judicial authority, the
harvest of the ward’s farm, and in so doing
the ward suffered a lesion of more than one-
fourth of the property. How many years will
be given the ward to rescind the contract?
ANS.: The ward will be given 4 years after
reaching the age of majority (the time the
guardianship ceases); hence, before reaching
22 years of age, the former ward should
already have sued for the rescission of the
contract.
Who Can Bring the Action?
(a) The injured party (or the defrauded
creditor).
(b) His heir or successor-in-interest.
(c) Creditors of (a) and (b) by virtue of Art.
1177 of the Civil Code (accion subrogatoria).
Who May Be Defendants?
(See Art. 1388 of the Civil Code and
comments thereon.)