Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao Versus Ramon Alcantara Digest

Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao

versus

Ramon Alcantara Digest

Facts: On August August 3, 1931, appellant appellant Sia Suan executed executed a deed of sale with with Rufino Rufino Alcantara 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 August 27, 1931, Gaw Chiao (husband of Sia Suan) received a letter from Francisco Alfonso, attorney of Ramo Ramon n Alcan Alcanta tara ra,, infor informi ming ng Gaw Gaw Chia Chiao o that that Ramo Ramon n Alca Alcanta ntara ra was was a minor minor and accordingly disavowing the contract. After being contacted by Gaw Chiao, however, Ramon Alcantara Alcantara executed an affidavit 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 to  Nicolas Azores Azores from whom whom Antonio Azores Azores inherited inherited the same. On August 8, 1940, 1940, an action was instituted instituted by respondent 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. Thus, this appeal by certiorari of Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao.

Issue: Whether or not the Deed of Sale executed on August 31, 1931 is null and void

Ruling: No. The SC ruled that Ramon is not allowed to annul such deed, because he already ratified it. The letter written by him informing the appellants of his minority constituted an effective effective disaffirmance disaffirmance of the sale, and that although the choice to disaffirm disaffirm will not by itself  avoid the contract until the courts adjudge the agreement to be invalid, said notice shielded Ramon from laches and consequent estoppel.. Ramon may have executed his acts in bad faith for he earned money from Gaw Chiao as a result of the sale and its ratification, yet he summons the courts to annul the sale because he executed it while still a minor. The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and the appellants absolved from the complaint, with costs against the appellee, Ramon Alcantara