Title
Mercado vs. Espiritu
Case
G.R. No. L-11872
Decision Date
Dec 1, 1917
Plaintiffs, claiming minority and fraud, sought to annul a 1910 land sale to their uncle. Court ruled sale valid, citing estoppel due to plaintiffs' false representation of legal age and lack of fraud evidence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11872)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and procedural history
    • Plaintiffs and appellants Domingo and Josefa Mercado, children and heirs of Margarita Espiritu, filed suit on April 9, 1913 in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan against Luis Espiritu; after his death the suit was amended against his administrator, Jose Espiritu.
    • Plaintiffs alleged that a 48-hectare tract in Panducot, Calumpit, Bulacan—paraphernal property of their mother—had been held by their family since 1897; that Luis Espiritu, by fraud and cajolery, induced Domingo and Josefa to sign a deed of sale for ₱400 in about 1910, although the land was valued at ₱3,795; and they prayed to annul the sale, recover their one-quarter shares plus uncollected products (₱450 per annum), and costs.
  • Defendant’s answer and cross-complaint
    • Denial of all allegations; special defense that:
      • In 1894 Margarita Espiritu sold 15 cavanes for ₱2,000 to Luis;
      • In 1901 Wenceslao Mercado (husband and administrator) sold under pacto de retro another 6 cavanes for ₱375 and borrowed additional ₱600;
      • On May 17, 1910, the four Mercado children, declaring themselves of legal age, ratified prior transactions and sold the entire 21-cavane parcel for ₱400.
    • Cross-complaint sought an order of perpetual silence regarding the land, ₱1,000 damages to the estate, and costs. Plaintiffs denied and urged annulment on grounds of minority within four-year period.
  • Trial evidence
    • Proof of minority: lost baptismal registers; plaintiffs’ sister recognized a copybook entry showing births on August 4, 1890 (Domingo) and July 14, 1891 (Josefa); 1910 cedula and 1914 personal registry also indicated ages under majority.
    • Witnesses for defendant: notary Tanjutco testified plaintiffs represented themselves as of age and signed after translation; relatives testified as to land area, yields, and management by Luis Espiritu; no evidence of fraud or intimidation in 1910 deed.
    • Rebuttal: plaintiffs denied procuring the 1910 deed through fraud or that witnesses were present; no supplemental proof of actual minority was introduced beyond copybook entries.

Issues:

  • Whether Domingo and Josefa Mercado were minors on May 17, 1910 when they executed the deed of sale (Exhibit 3) and thus lacked capacity to contract.
  • If they were minors, whether their false representation of majority in the 1910 instrument estops them, within the four-year annulment period (Civ. Code, arts. 1263, 1300), from seeking rescission.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.