G.R. No. 2935 - Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Frank

On April 17, 1903, in Chicago, Illinois, the defendant, through a representative of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, entered into a two-year contract with the Government of the Philippine Islands to serve as a stenographer at a salary of $1,200 per year.
The contract provided that the Government would advance the defendant’s travel expenses from Chicago to Manila and one-half salary during the period of travel.
A penalty clause stipulated that if the defendant violated the contract, he would be liable for the travel expenses and the half-salary advanced.

The defendant commenced performance on April 30, 1903, and received half-salary from that date until June 4, 1903, when he arrived in the Philippine Islands.
On February 11, 1904, the defendant left the Government’s service and refused further performance under the contract.

December 3, 1904: The Government filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover $269.23 for travel expenses and half-salary advanced.
The defendant answered with a general denial and a special defense alleging:

The contract’s incorporation of Philippine Laws Nos. 80 and 224 had been materially altered by later amendments (Acts Nos. 643 and 1040).
He was a minor at the time of contracting and thus lacked capacity.

The Government demurred to the special defense; the trial court sustained the demurrer.
After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment for the Government in the net amount of $265.90.
The defendant appealed, assigning as error:

On October 12, 1905, the appellant filed his printed bill of exceptions in the Supreme Court; briefs were filed by the appellant on December 5, 1905, and by the Attorney-General on January 19, 1906.
The appeal lay dormant until January 30, 1909, when the Supreme Court ordered prosecution under penalty of dismissal; the cause was placed on the calendar and heard February 2, 1909.

Whether subsequent amendments to Philippine Laws Nos. 80 and 224 altered the contract terms into which those laws were incorporated.
Whether the defendant, being a minor under Philippine law at the time of enforcement, could plead infancy as a defense despite having capacity under Illinois law at the time of contracting.