Generally, minors, insane and demented persons, and deaf- mutes who do not know how to write, have no legal capacity to contract,7 and therefore are disqualifi ed from being parties
to a sale.8 Nonetheless, contracts entered into by such legally
incapacitated persons are not void, but merely voidable, subject to annulment or ratifi cation.9 The action for annulment cannot
be instituted by the person who is capacitated since he is disqualifi ed from alleging the incapacity of the person with whom he contracts.10
Contracts entered into during lucid intervals by insane or demented persons are generally valid;11 whereas, those entered
into in a state of drunkenness, or during a hypnotic spell, are merely voidable.12
When the defect of the contract consists in the incapacity of one of the parties, the incapacitated person is not obliged to make any restitution, except insofar as he has been benefi ted by the thing or price received by him.13
1. Necessaries
A minor is without legal capacity to give consent to a sale, and since consent is an essential requisite of every contract, the absence thereof cannot give rise to a valid sale;14 nonetheless,
the defective consent gives rise to a voidable sale, meaning “valid until annulled.”
The Title on Sales in the Civil Code specifi cally provides that although a minor is not capacitated to validly enter into a sale, “[w]here necessaries are sold and delivered to a minor or other person without capacity to act, he must pay a reasonable
7Art. 1327, Civil Code.
8Labagala v. Santiago, 371 SCRA 360 (2001). 9Art. 1393, Civil Code.
10Art. 1397, Civil Code. 11Art. 1328, Civil Code.
12Art. 3128, Civil Code, emphasis supplied. 13Art. 1399, Civil Code.
price therefore,”15and the resulting sale is valid, and not merely
voidable.
“Necessaries,” are now defi ned by Article 194 of the Family Code to cover “everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the fi nancial capacity of the family ... [and education] include[s] his schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work.” Since sales cover only the obligation to deliver a thing, the sale of “necessaries” considered valid under Article 1489 can only cover sales pertaining to sustenance, dwelling, and clothing, and perhaps medicine and educational books and materials.
In order for the sale of necessaries to minors to be valid, and not merely voidable, two elements need to be present: (a) perfection of the sale; and (b) delivery of the subject necessaries. If there is only perfection at the time the case reaches litigation, the sale of course is not void, but voidable for vice in consent, and the rules on voidable contracts apply.
2. Emancipation
The rules on emancipation under Articles 234 to 236 of the Family Code, have been rendered moot by Rep. Act No. 6809, which has lowered the age of majority to 18 years of age. Consequently, the issue on the validity of sales entered into by emancipated minors no longer exists.
Previously, under the Family Code, “emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority ... [which] commences at the age of twenty-one years.”16 In addition, it was provided that
emancipation also took place “(1) By marriage of the minor; or (2) By the voluntarily emancipation by recording in the Civil Register of an agreement in a public instrument executed by the parent exercising parental authority and the minor at least eighteen
15Art. 1489, Civil Code. 16Art. 234, Family Code.
years of age.”17 Emancipation would terminate parental authority
over the person and property of the minor, who shall then be qualifi ed and responsible for all acts of civil life,18 including validly
entering into contracts of sale.
Under the present Family Code, marriages entered into below eighteen years of age are void,19 rendering emancipation
by marriage at the age of 18 years inutile, since by merely reaching 18 years of age, even without marrying, one is already of legal age. Voluntary emancipation by registration of the public instrument requires that the minor be at least 18 years old, which is now legally impossible, because at eighteen years of age there is no longer a minor who may be voluntarily emancipated.
3. Senility and Serious Illness
The effects of senility and serious illness of the seller on the validity of a sale was covered in Domingo v. Court of
Appeals,20 where the main issue was whether the proponents
were able to establish the existence and due execution of a deed of sale with the only evidence adduced being a carbon copy of the alleged original deed where the signature of the alleged seller was a thumb mark made while sick on the hospital bed. Domingo agreed with the trial court’s ruling that sale was “null and void ab initio” on fi ndings that the “consideration for the nine (9) parcels of land including the house and bodega is grossly and shockingly inadequate,” but also on the fi ndings of the Court that —
... at the time of the execution of the alleged contract, Paulina Rigonan was already of advanced age and senile. She died an octogenarian ... barely over a year when the deed was allegedly executed ..., but before copies of the deed were entered in the registry allegedly [much later]. ... The unrebutted testimony ... shows that at the time of the alleged execution of the
17Art. 234, Family Code.
18Art. 236, Family Code, which was repealed by Rep. Act No. 6809. 19Arts. 2 and 5, Family Code.
deed, Paulina was already incapacitated physically and mentally... that Paulina played with her waste and urinated in bed...21
Domingo held that although “[t]he general rule is that a
person is not incompetent to contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infi rmities. However, when such age or infi rmities have impaired the mental faculties so as to prevent the person from properly, intelligently, and fi rmly protecting her property rights then she is undeniably incapacitated. Given these circumstances, there is in our view suffi cient reason to seriously doubt that she consented to the sale of and the price for the parcels of land. Moreover, there is no receipt to show that said price was paid to and received by her. Thus, we are in agreement with the trial court’s fi nding and conclusion on the matter.”22
The author posits that the essence of the Domingo ruling for declaring the sale void was that the circumstances showed that there was never any meeting of minds since there was no real consideration agreed upon, and that the deed was merely forged. It is unfortunate for Domingo to have declared the sale “void ab initio” on grounds that legally do not render it so, namely:
(a) Incapacity to give consent (senility, advanced age, and serious illness), which constitute only vice in consent, and would render the contract merely voidable;
(b) That “price was never paid to and received,” which gives rise only to an action for rescission or specifi c performance; and (c) That the consideration was “grossly and
shockingly inadequate,” which under Article 1470 of the Civil Code “does not affect a contract of sale, except as it may indicate a defect in the consent, or that the parties
21Ibid, at p. 380. 22Ibid, at p. 380.
really intended a donation or some other act or contract.”
The decision in Paragas v. Heirs of Dominador Balacano,23
which invoked Domingo, again took the unusual step to declare a sale executed by one who is already of advanced age and senile to be “null and void,” instead of being merely voidable. In that case, the alleged seller, shown to have signed the Deed of Sale on his death bed in the hospital, “was an octogenarian at the time of the alleged execution of the contract and suffering from liver cirrhosis at that — circumstances which raise grave doubts on his physical and mental capacity to freely consent to the contract.”24
In Paragas, the Court used the protective provisions of Article 24 of the Civil Code for ruling that the sale was void, i.e., “[i]n all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.” It does not seem logical for the Court to declare the sale void, when annulment of the contract by reason of vitiated consent, would have been the more logical remedy to apply.