DOMINGO MERCADO & JOSEFA MERCADO V.

JOSE ESPIRITU (ADMIN OF DECEASED LUIS ESPIRITU’S ESTATE)

1 December 1917 | Torres, J. |
Vices of Consent - Misrepresentation

DOCTRINE: Sale of real estate, made by minors who pretend to be of legal age, when in fact they aren’t, is valid, and they
won’t be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by them, or to have them
annulled.

SUMMARY: Petitioners and their sisters inherited land from their dead mom. According to them, their uncle, Luis, used
fraudulent means in order to get them to execute a deed in his favour regarding the land. During the deed’s execution, they
said that they were minors and therefore the deed should be void. Court found records showing that the sales of said land
made by their parents as valid while the petitioners were still minors. Furthermore, none of the evidence presented
showed that the petitioners were minors during the deed’s execution and that Luis did any sketchy thing to get them to
execute the deed in his favour. Court held that if they were truly minors during the execution, according to the above
doctrine, the sale would still be valid because the petitioners and their sisters had presented themselves to be of legal age
during the sales’ ratifications when they weren’t.

FACTS:
 The Family (no one and the case doesn’t care about the 5 th kid; they just kinda don’t exist tbh):
o Margarita Espiritu – Wenceslao’s wife; died around 1896 (according to kids) to 1897 (according to records)
o Wenceslao Mercado – Margarita’s husband; died in 1904, had 5 kids with Margarita
o Children (Domingo, Josefa, Concepcion/Consejo, Paz, and Amalia) – Amalia doesn’t seem to appear here
o Luis Espiritu – Margarita’s brother; died soon after this complaint was filed; replaced by his son, Jose who’s
also the administrator of his property, in this case
 Present Case Facts According to the Petitioners:
o Since Margarita’s death in 1897, petitioners, through their dad, has been holding the hereditary portion of her
paraphernal property (a tract of land about 48 hectares found in barrio Panducot, Calumpit, Bulacan)
 ½ of the land belongs to Margarita; then ½ of this portion belongs to Domingo and Josefa, and the
other ½ belongs to Concepcion and Paz
 Combining both portions of land could produce 180 cavanes of rice (this is the confusing part but w/
regards to the case, think of cavanes as a measure of the land bec. that’s how they argue throughout)
o 1910, Luis, via means of cajolery, induced, and fraudulently succeeded in getting Domingo and Josefa to sign a
deed of sale of the land for P400
 The amount was divided amongst the 4 of them (no Amalia) even if the land was assessed to have a
value of P3,795
o 9 April 1913, petitioners filed a complaint against Luis in CFI Bulacan
 Present Case Facts According to Respondents (who are actually correct):
o Jose alleges that the complaint’s subject only had an area of about 21 cavanes
o 25 May 1894, Margarita, the land’s owner and with due authorization of her husband, sold to Luis for P2k a
portion of the land; around 15 cavanes so there’s only 6 cavanes left
o 14 May 1901, Wenceslao, in his capacity as the admin of his kids’ property, sold the remaining land under
pacto de retro to Luis at P375. He did to gets funds to cover his kids’ needs
 Since the amount was still insufficient, he borrowed money from Luis, aggregating a total of P600
o 17 May 1910, petitioners alleged themselves to be of legal age and executed, along with their sisters, the
notarial instrument w/c ratified the sale under the pacto de retro (all the sales by their parents added up to
P2.6K). Thus, the land was sold absolutely and perpetually to Luis in consideration of P400
 Pre-Case to Present Case Facts (How the land in question even came to be; supports respondents’ POV):
o 1981, Lucas Espiritu obtained title to 3 parcels of land, adjoining each other containing 75 hectares, 25 ares
and 69 centares
o When Lucas died, his 4 kids (Victoria, Ines, Margarita, and Luis) inherited these lands. Around 47 hectares
was allotted to Luis and Margarita in equal shares
o When Margarita died, her kids inherited, by operation of law, ½ of the land described in the complaint
(essentially it’s around ¼ of the 47 hectares = 11 hectares, 86 ares and 73 centares)
o Notarial instrument of 25 May 1894 proved the ff.:
 Margarita did sell a portion of the land to Luis for P2K, an area of around 15 cavanes
 Due to the loss of the original doc, w/c was in Luis’ possession, Wenceslao executed at Luis’ instance,
another notarial instrument on 20 May 1901, in his own name and in those of his minor kids
  Petitioners assailed the deed of sale’s validity executed by them on 17 May 1910 on the grounds that they were still
minors then, and that Luis used deceit and fraud to obtain their consent to execute the deed

ISSUE:
 W/N the petitioners were minors then, and therefore incapable of selling their property on the date labeled on the
instrument – NO, they weren’t minors
 If yes, w/n a person who is truly a minor, and notwithstanding that he attests that he’s of legal age, can, after deed’s
execution and w/in the legal period, ask for the annulment of the instrument executed by him due to some defect that
invalidates the contract so that he may obtain restitution of the land sold – NO

RULING:
 Evidence shown in the trial shows that Luis didn’t use any fraudulent means have the petitioners execute the deed;
and that the deed was an acknowledgement of the previous sales made by the petitioners’ parents
 Petitioners weren’t minors when they executed the deed
o Consejo testified that their baptismal register books were kept and taken cared of by Wenceslao. The pages
therein showed that Domingo was born on 4 Aug. 1890 and Josefa on 14 July 1891
 She corroborated this w/ a personal registration certificate that shows during 1914, Dominga was 23
y.o. and Josefa was 22 -> therefore, on 17 May 1910, they were 19 and 18 respectively
o Patricio Tanjucto, the notary before whom the deed was ratified, testified that it was drawn up by him at
Josefa’s request and the instrument’s grantors assured him that they were all of legal age
o Additionally, the petitioners alleged that Luis took Domingo’s personal registration certificate on 13 April
1910 in order to put the latter’s age as 23
 However, no proof was presented to support this. Neither was there any proof to show that the
petitioners weren’t of legal age during the deed’s execution
 Court held that “sale of real estate, made by minors who pretend to be of legal age, when in fact they are not, is valid,
and they will not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by them, or to
have them annulled” (Law 6, Title 19, 6th Partida)
o The judgment that holds such a sale to be valid and absolves the purchaser from the complaint filed against
them doesn’t violate the laws relative to the sale of minors’ property

DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED.