Case No. 2: SIA SUAN and GAW CHIAO, Petitioners, vs.RAMON ALCANTARA, RespondentG.R. No. L-1720; March 4, 19501.What are the material facts of the case and the issues arising therefrom?On August 3, 1931, appellant Sia Suan executed a deed of sale with Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso Alcantara and appellee Ramon Alcantara, conveying five parcels of land to said petitioner. Ramon Alcantara was then 17 years, 10 months and 22 days old. On August27, 1931, Gaw Chiao (husband of SiaSuan) received a letter from Francisco Alfonso, attorney of Ramon Alcantara, informing Gaw Chiao that Ramon Alcantara was a minor and accordingly disavowing the contract. After being contacted by GawChiao, however, Ramon Alcantara executed an affidavit ratifying the deed of sale. On said occasion Ramon Alcantara received from Gaw Chiao the sum of P500. In the meantime, Sia Suan sold one of the lots toNicolas Azores from whom Antonio Azores inherited the same. On August 8, 1940, an action was instituted by respondent Ramon Alcantara in the CFI (Court of First Instance) of Laguna for the annulment of the deed of sale as regards his undivided share in the two parcels of land covered by certificates of title Nos. 751 and 752 of Laguna. The CFI of Laguna rendered a decision in favor of appellee Alcantara in view of his minority during the execution of the contract. The issue then that has to be resolved is that Whether or not the Deed of Sale executed on August 31, 1931 is null and void

For what purpose did Gaw Chiao intend to use the ratification by Ramon? Was that purpose attained? Explain.

Taking into account the action taken by Gaw Chiao in suggesting his wife, Sia Suan, to let Ramon Alcantara sign an affidavit ratifyng the sale, gives aan impression that they intend to make it appear that Ramon was in estoppel. The purpose is to protect their interest should time comes that Ramon would disaffirm the sale by reason of his minority. Though the court decided in favor of the appellants, the purpose of the latter to protect their interest were not the basis of the court in its decision.

Was it necessary for Sia Suan to part with cash so as to bind the vendor who represented to be of legal age? Explain.

No. To bind a minor ( the vendor) who represents himself to be of legal age , it is not necessary for his vendee to actaully part with cash, as long as the contract is supported by a valid consideration. Since appellee's conveyance to the appellants was admittedly for and in virtue of a pre-existing indebtedness (unquestionably a valid consideration), it should produce its full force and effect in the absence of any other vice that may legally inviolate the same.

How does this case differ from that of Mercado and Mercado vs. Espiritu? Discuss the difference, if any.

In the case Mercado and Mercado vs. Espiritu, Domingo and Josefa Mercado, who were minors and made a misrepresetation with regard their age let the buyers to believe that they were of legal age, received a sum of money and then later on invoked that the deed of sale which they executed be annulled on the ground of their minority. In the case at bar, however there is no sum of money involced and that the Deed of Sale executed was it a Dacion en pago to settle a pre-existing debt.

The concurring opinion of Justice Padilla begins with the following statement: I concur in the result not upon the grounds stated in the majority opinion but for the following reasons: Discuss briefly on what different grounds he concurred. Was his concurring opinion an objection to the grounds of the majority decision? Explain briefly. (See Appendix B for translation of dissenting opinion of Justice Pablo.)

Justice Padilla, in his concurring opinion presented some grounds that were different from that of the ration of the case. His reasons were; The deed of sale executed by Ramon Alcantara is null and void because of his minority. A minor, such as Ramon Alcantara could not give consent for a contract. The misrepresentation as to the age of Ramon was the statement appearing in the instrument that he was of age. GawChiao, was advised by Atty. Francisco Alfonso of the fact that his client Ramon Alcantara was a minor. The fact that the latter, for and in consideration of P500, executed an affidavit, whereby he ratified the deed of sale, is of no moment. The majority opinion invokes the rule laid down in the case of Mercado et al. vs. Espiritu.The contract of sale involved in the case of Mercado vs. Espiritu, was executed by the minors on 17 May 1910. The Law in force during said time was not Las SietePartidas,but the Civil Code which took effect in the Philippines on 8 December 1889. As already stated, the Civil Code requires the consent of both parties for the valid execution of a contract. As a minor cannot give his consent, the contract made or executed by him has no validity and legal effect. There is no provision in the Civil Code similar to that of Law 6, Title 19, of the 6th Partida which is equivalent to the common law principle of estoppel. If there be an express provision in the Civil Code similar law 6, Title 19, of the 6th Partida, Justice Padilla would have agreed to the reasoning of the majority. The absence of such provision in the Civil Code is fatal to the validity of the contract executed by a minor. It would be illogical to uphold the validity of a contract on the ground of estoppel, because if the contract executed by a minor is null and void for lack of consent and produces no legal effect, how could such a minor be bound by misrepresentation about his age? If he could not be bound by a direct act, such as the execution of a deed of sale, how could he be bound by an indirect act, such as misrepresentation as to his age? Nevertheless, as the action in this case was brought on 8 August 1940, the same was barred, because it was not brought within four (4) years after the minor had become of age, pursuant to article 1301 of the Civil Code.