j : i ; Seaganza v. Vita Acie, \05 Phil 456195 Rosario Graganza and bev Sons loaned from Ve Vila Morile P70,000 in Japanese mae wotes and we CTS Corsidewation theveaG, gromised im writing to gay him AO}0O + Ut ger anni in tgp eorvency of the Foiigpines 1 yeows after the cessation of the wav. Because they have no paid, Novile Sued them im March “HP. The tania court of Fxst wstance and CA held the Family Soldarly ible to gay according to the Contract they Signed. The family getitioned to veview the decision of the CA whereby they were ovdeved to Solidariy gay Ge Vila Abril A0,000 + Ut interest, praying For consideration of the winorty of the Beaganza sons when they Signed the contvact. TSSUE: Whether the looys, who were and Wf vesgectively, ave to be leon ly the contract of loan they have Sipe HELO. The SC Found that Rosario will stil be Noble to gay her shave in tHe conten because tHe woinartty of bee Sons does mot veiease hur from jeiity, She ordered to gay V> of PI0.000 + Tk interest. However, with hee Sons, the SC veversed the decision of the CA which Found them Similarly able dve to ‘their Failure to disclose thelr minority. The SC Sustained previous Sources in Turisgeudence - Yin order +o hold ‘the infant liable, the Fraud must be actual and wot consteuctive, Tt has been held that his mere silence whan walking a contract a6 to ht age does not constitute a Fraud which can be wade the basis of an action of deceit* “The boys, thaigh not ound ey the growions of the contract, ave Still abe to gay the actual amaint they tave profited Geom the loan. Art. 1340 States that even i€ the written contract’ i6 Unenforceable wecause of their non-age, they Shall wake restitution to the extent that they way have grofited by the money weceived, In this ca62, 17 of F70,00, which i FAbbEb bb, which when converted to Fhiliggine. monty i equivalent to Pilbbb7.