Cabales vs.

Court of Appeals

Facts:

Sometime in 1964, Rurfino Cabales died leaving behind a parcel of land in Southern Leyte to his
wife, Saturnina and six children, namely, Bonifacio, Francisco, Alberto, Albino, Lenora, and
Rito. On 1971, the brothers and co-owners Bonifacio, Alberto and Albino sold the property to
Dr. Corrompido with a right to repurchase within eight (8) years. On 1972, prior to the
redemption of the property, Alberto died leaving behind his wife and son, Nelson, herein
petitioner.

Sometime later and within the redemption period, the said brothers and their mother, in lieu of
Alberto, tendered their payment to Dr. Corrompido. Subsequently, Saturnina, and her four
children, Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and Leonora sold the said land to Spouses Feliano. It was
provided in the deed of sale that the shares of Nelson and Rito, being minor at the time of the
sale, will be held in trust by the vendee and will paid upon them reaching the age of 21.

In 1986, Rito received the sum of 1,143 pesos from the Spouses Feliano representing his share
from the proceeds of the sale of the property. It was only in 1988, that Nelson learned of the sale
from his uncle, Rito. He signified his intention to redeem the property in 1993 but it was only in
1995 that he filed a complaint for redemption against the Spouses Feliano. The respondent
Spouses averred that the petitioners are estopped from denying the sale since: (1) Rito already
received his share; and (2) Nelson, failed to tender the total amount of the redemption price.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favour of Spouses Feliano on the ground that Nelson was no
longer entitled to the property since, his right was subrogated by Saturnina upon the death of his
father, Alberto. It also alleged that Rito had no more right to redeem since Saturnina, being his
legal guardian at the time of the sale was properly vested with the right to alienate the same.

The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court stating that the sale made by
Saturnina in behalf of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable.

Issue:

Whether or not the sale made by a legal guardian (Saturnina) in behalf of the minors were
binding upon them.

Held:

With regard to the share of Rito, the contract of sale was valid. Under Section 1, Rule 96 A
guardian shall have the care and custody of the person of his ward, and the management of his
estate, or the management of the estate only. x x x Indeed, the legal guardian only has the
plenary power of administration of the minors property. It does not include the power of
alienation which needs judicial authority. Thus, when Saturnina, as legal guardian of petitioner
Rito, sold the latters pro indiviso share in subject land, she did not have the legal authority to do
so. Accordingly, the contract as to the share of Rito was unenforceable. However, when he
received the proceeds of the sale, he effectively ratified it. This act of ratification rendered the
sale valid and binding as to him.

With respect to petitioner Nelson, the contract of sale was void. He was a minor at the time of
the sale. Saturnina or any and all the other co-owners were not his legal guardians; rather it was
his mother who if duly authorized by the courts, could validly sell his share in the property.
Consequently, petitioner Nelson retained ownership over their undivided share in the said
property. However, Nelson can no longer redeem the property since the thirty day redemption
period has expired and thus he remains as co-owner of the property with the Spouses Feliano.