Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Case Digest on Standard Oil Co. v.

Arenas (Capacity to Act) Facts: The SOCNY sued the 5 debtors for payment, including the appellant Vicente Villanueva who acted as surety to the loan. The CFI of Manila ordered the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs SOCNY. While the judgment was in the course of execution, Elisa Villanueva, wife of Vicente appeared and alleged that her husband was declared insane on July 24, 1909, and that on Oct. 11, she was authorized by the court as guardian to institute the proper legal proceedings for the annulment of several bonds given by her husband while in a state of insanity. Issues: (1)Whether or not suffering from monomania of wealth necessarily warrants the conclusion that the person does not have capacity to act. (2) Whether or not the appellant, was incapable of entering into contract at the time the bond was executed on December 15, 1908. Held: The court affirmed the trial court decision that Villanueva possessed the capacity to act. The SC held that there is no evidence to warrant the conclusion, in a judicial decision, that a person suffering from monomania of wealth is really insane and therefore is deranged and incapable of binding himself in a contract. From the testimony of his wife, it seemed that Vicente has the liberty to go wherever he wished, that he had property of his own and was not deprived of its management, as well as the fact that he had never squandered any large sum of money. As for the 2nd issue, there was no direct proof that showed that at the date of the giving of the bond, December 15, 1908, the appellant was incapable of acting because of insanity. The witnesses who as physicians, testified that they observed insane periods in Villanueva twice prior to 1903, once on 1908, but none at the time of the execution of the said bond on December 15, 1908. It was also shown that the wife never before sought to legally deprive her husband management over his estate knowing full well that he was insane. http://pinaylawyer.com/2010/11/11/case-digest-on-standard-oil-co-v-arenas-capacity-to-act/ Case Digest on Mercado v. Espiritu (Legal Age) Facts: The plaintiffs alleged that as the sole heirs, along with their two sisters, to a 48 hectare tract of land which belonged to their mother the sister of the defendant. The defendant cajoled, induced, and fraudulently succeeded in getting the plaintiffs to sell their land for a sum of P400 as opposed to its original value. The plaintiffs demand the annulment of the sale, the return of the land, and the remuneration of the thing benefited by the defendant. According to the Defendant, the plaintiffs mother had sold a portion of the original land to the defendant for a sum. (instrument exhibit 1)The plaintiffs father subsequently, mortgaged the remaining parcel to the defendant for a sum to cover his childrens welfare after his wifes death. (Pacto de retro; instrument exhibit 2) The plaintiffs had alleged themselves of legal age and ratified the absolute and perpetual sale of the land in consideration of the P400 (instrument exhibit 3). Cross-complaint filed for damages due to the malicious and unfounded complaint by the plaintiffs. http://pinaylawyer.com/2010/11/11/case-digest-on-mercado-v-espiritu-legal-age/

Case Digest on Braganza v. Villa Abrille (Minor Signing Contract) Facts: Rosario Braganza and her sons loaned from De Villa Abrille P70,000 in Japanese war notes and in consideration thereof, promised in writing to pay him P10,00 + 2% per annum in legal currency of the Philippines 2 years after the cessation of the war. Because they have no paid, Abrille is sued them in March 1949. The Manila court of first instance and CA held the family solidarily liable to pay according to the contract they signed.The family petitioned to review the decision of the CA whereby they were ordered to solidarily pay De Villa Abrille P10,000 + 2% interest, praying for consideration of the minority of the Braganza sons when they signed the contract. Issue: Whether or not the boys, who were 16 and 18 respectively, are to be bound by the contract of loan they have signed. Held: The SC found that Rosario will still be liable to pay her share in the contract because they minority of her sons does not release her from liability. She is ordered to pay 1/3 of P10,000 + 2% interest. However with her sons, the SC reversed the decision of the CA which found them similarly liable due to their failure to disclose their minority. The SC sustained previous sources in Jurisprudence in order to hold the infant liable, 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. The boys, though not bound by the provisions of the contract, are still liable to pay the actual amount they have profited from the loan. Art. 1340 states that even if the written contract is unenforceable because of their non-age, they shall make restitution to the extent that they may have profited by the money received. In this case, 2/3 of P70,00, which is P46,666.66, which when converted to Philippine money is equivalent to P1,166.67. http://pinaylawyer.com/2010/11/11/case-digest-on-braganza-v-villa-abrille-minor-signing-contract/ Case Digest on Bambalan vs. Maramba and Muerong Case: APPELANT: Isidro Bambalan Y Prado APPELEE: German Maramba and Genoveva Muerong DECIDED: January 30, 1928 DECISION: Dispositive part of judgment affirmed OPINON: J. Street Facts: Bambalans parents Paula Prado and her first husband, Isidro Bambalan Y Calcotura received a loan from Genoveva Muerong and German Maramba in 1915. Calcotura died leaving Bambalan as the sole heir of his estate. In 1922, Muerong and Maramba forced Bambalan, who was at that time, a minor, to sell their land as payment for the loan.

Bambalan signed, but said that he was forced because they were threatening his mother with imprisonment. Muerong and Maramba bought Bambalans first cedula to acknowledge the document. Important Statutes: Civil code, Art. 1327. The following cannot give consent to a contract: (1) Unemancipated minors; (2) Insane or demented persons, and deaf-mutes who do not know how to write. (1263a) Civil code, Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. Issues: Whether or not Bambalan sold the land to Maramaba and Muerong Court Analysis: Whether or not Bambalan sold the land to Maramaba and Muerong Contract has been vitiated to the extent of being void because: 1.The vendor was a minor. 2.His age was well known to the purchaser. (Maramba bought plaintiffs ceedula) 3.Mercado vs Espiritu CANNOT be applied: Plaintiff did not pretend to be of age. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4664576/Bambalan-v-Maramba-and-Muerong