Article 1394

Article 1394

By: Gretzen M. Colona

Ratification may be effected by the guardian of the incapacitated person.

Ang ratipikasyon ay maaring maisagawa ng guardian ng taong nawalan ng kapasidad.


Discussion:

Incapacitated persons includes unemancipated minors and insane or demented persons, and deaf-mutes who do not know how to write.

If incapacitated enters into a contract, the contract is voidable if the other party is capacitated. If both are incapacitated, the contract becomes void.

The guardians however may ratify the defective contract in their behalf. If the incapacitated person becomes capacitated, they themselves may ratify their defective contracts.

Escoto vs Arcilla, 89 Phil. 199 (1951)

Ponente: J. Tuason

Facts:

Tancungco conveyed his property to Jacinto Hilario and his daughter Armada Hilario, provided that he would remain in possession of the property and could repurchase them in two years. When Jacinto died, his rights were transferred to Armada.

When Armada died, her spouse and their children, with Artemio Hilario as guardian ad-litem, brought a possessory action in the Justice of Peace of the Court of Angeles. In a compromise, the right to repurchase was given to Tancungco, in the sum of P7,000 within two years. However, Tancungco failed to pay.

In an order by Judge Magsalin, the judge said that he could not sanction the sale because Tancungco is a Chinese citizen. Arcilla, after notifying Tancungco of the decision, ordered him to vacate the property. Instead of seeking reconsideration, Tancungco filed a manifestation that he conveyed his right to acquire to Dr. Bundalian, a Filipino. When Tancungco died, his widow applied for an order for Arcilla to comply with the agreed sale. The court, then presided by Judge David, authorized Arcilla to sell the lands.

Arcilla instituted certiorari proceedings before the Supreme Court attacking the validity of the Judge’s decision on the grounds that the heirs of his wife had not been notified of the proposed sale.

Issue: Whether or not the minors were not made party to the proposed sale.

Held:

No. It has been seen that through their duly appointed guardian ad litem they ratified the compromise in open court, when not only the guardian but the oldest two of the children as well personally appeared and expressed their conformity to the proposed sale. This ratification validated the agreement as effectively as if the minors or their guardian ad litem had signed it.

Many thanks & God bless.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OBLIGATION & CONTRACTS Art. 1156 - 1161

Article 1278

PEREZ vs POMAR Case Digest