BRAGANZA v.

VILLA ABRILLE
G.r. No. L-12471, April 13, 1959

Facts:
✓ On October 30, 1944, petitioners (Mrs. Braganza and her sons Guillermo, 16 yrs of age and
Rodolfo, 18 yrs of age) received from respondent an amount of P70,000 as a loan in Japanese war
notes.
✓ Petitioners promised in writing to pay the respondent P10,000 (in legal currency of P.I) 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.
✓ Failure to pay, respondent sued them in March 1949.
✓ Petitioners claimed that they received only P40,000 instead of P70,000 and alleged that the
consigners Guillermo and Rodolfo (respondent) were minors (Defenses personal to, or which
pertain to share of, debtor sued), thus, would release her from liability.
✓ Manila Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the respondent and held petitioners liable to pay
solidarily the respondent the sum of P10,000 plus 2% interest.
✓ The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision by reviewing the case of Mercado v.
Espiritu.
✓ Hence, petitioners filed for review of the CA’s decision before this court.

Issue:
Whether or not the minority age of Guillermo and Rodolfo at the time they signed the promissory
note extinguishes their liability.

Rulings:
According to Corpus Juris Secundum, “In order to hold the 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 his age
does not constitute a fraud which can be made the basis of an action of deceit."
Furthermore, according to 27 American Jurisprudence, "The fraud of which an infant may be held
liable to one who contracts with him in the belief that he is offull age must be actual not constructive, and
mere failure of the infant to disclose his age is not sufficient."
The court held that in Mercado case is different because the minor is guilty of active
misrepresentation, whereas in this case, the minors are guilty of constructive misrepresentation. Thus,
Rodolfo and Guillermo Braganza could not be legally bound by their signatures.
The provisions of Article 1301 of the Civil Code provides that, "an action to annul a contract by
reason of majority must be filed within 4 years" after the minor has reached majority age. (On October
1944, Rodolfo was 18, on October 1947 he was 21, on October 1951, he was 25. Thus, when the personal
defense of minors was interposed on June 1951, the four-yr period had not yet completely elapsed from
October 1947.)
However, under Article 1340 of the same code, the minors shall make restitution to the extent that
they may have profited by the money they received. It was also testified that the funds delivered to them
by Villa Abrille were used for their support during the Japanese occupation. So, as the share of the minors
was 2/3 of P70,000 is P46,666.66 now return P1,166.67. Their promise to pay P10,000 cannot be enforced
since they were minors incapable of binding themselves.
Thus, Rosario Braganza shall pay 1/3 of P10,000 which is P3,333.33 plus 2% interest from
October 1944, and the minors shall pay jointly the amount of P1,166.67 plus 6% interest from March
7, 1947 when the complaint was filed.

Digested by,
Ayen Barataman
1 - Arellano