BRAGANZA v VILLA ABRILLE 105 PHIL 456

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 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 the boys, who were 16 and 18 respectively, are to be bound by the contract of loan they have
signed.

RATIO:

The SC found that Rosario will still be liable to pay her share in the contract because the 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.