[CASE DIGEST] BADILLO v. FERRER (G.R. No. L-51369)

July 29, 1987

 

Ponente: Gancayco, J. 

FACTS:

·         Macario Badillo died intestate on February 4, 1966. He was survived by his widow, Clarita Ferrer, and five minor children: Alberto, 16, Nenita, 14, Hilly 12, Cristy, 9, and Maria Salome, 5. He left a parcel of registered land of 77 square meters in Lumban, Laguna, with a house erected thereon, valued at P7,500.00. Hence, each of his five minor children had inherited a 1/12 share of the P7,500.00 or P625.00 each.

·         In 1967, Clarita the surviving widow, in her own behalf and as natural guardian of her minor children, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale of the land in Lumban in favor of the spouses Gregorio Soromero and Eleuteria Rana. A new transfer certificate of title was thereafter issued to Soromero and Rana. 

·         In 1968, Modesta Badillo (Macario's sister and aunt of the five minor children) was able to obtain guardianship over the persons and properties of the 5 minor children, without personal notice to their mother, who was alleged "could not be located inspite of the efforts exerted."

·         In 1970, Modesta caused the 5 minor children to file a complaint in court for the annulment of the sale of the Lumban property to Soromero and Rana. The complaint likewise averred that, even if such sale were valid, the five minor children as co-owners were allowed to exercise the right of legal redemption.

·         RTC: Annulled the sale of the Lumban property to Soromero and Rana. The ruling also allowed the 5 minor children to redeem the property.

·         The instant petition was filed by Soromero and Rana.

RULING: 

RTC ruling affirmed with modification that 5/12 of the property representing the shares of the minor children be restored to them through the execution of the proper deed of reconveyance. The sale of the remaining portion, or 7/12 of the property to Soromero and Rana remains valid.

Whether Clarita had authority to convey to Soromero and Rana the 5/12 share of her children. – NO.

RE: AUTHORITY TO CONVEY PROPERTY CO-OWNED WITH MINOR CHILDREN

·         Article 320 NCC provides that "the father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority." Article 326 states further that "when the property of the child is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or mother shall be considered a guardian of the child's property, subject to the duties and obligations of guardians under the Rules of Court."

·         In other words, the father, or in his absence the mother, is considered the legal administrator of the property pertaining to his child under parental authority without need of giving a bond in case the amount of his child's property does not exceed Two Thousand Pesos.

·         Sec. 7, Rule 93 of the ROC goes further by automatically designating the parent as the legal guardian of the child without need of any judicial appointment in case the latter's property does not exceed Two Thousand Pesos. But the powers given by the laws to either the father or the mother as the natural guardian only cover matters of administration and cannot include the power of disposition.

·         In the present case, the value of the Lumban property was P7,500. Each of the 5 minor children had inherited 1/12 share, or P625 each. This was clearly less than the P2,000 threshold required by law. Therefore, after the minors' father died, their mother, Clarita Ferrer Badillo, automatically became their legal guardian. As such, she acquired the plenary powers of a judicial guardian except the power to alienate or encumber her children's property without judicial authorization.

·         In other words, Clarita had no authority or had acted beyond her powers in conveying to Soromero and Rana the 5/12 undivided share of her minor children in the Lumban property because she conveyed her children’s/wards’ shares without prior permission from the courts. The powers given to her by the law as the natural guardian covered only matters of administration and cannot include the power of disposition.

Whether the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale is a voidable or an unenforceable contract. – UNENFORCEABLE.

RE: INVALIDITY OF THE SALE

·         SOROMERO AND RANA: If anything, the contract was voidable. As such, restitution by the contracting parties to each other of the things received by them under the contract is called for.

·         SC: The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale is not a voidable or an annullable contract under Article 1390 of the New Civil Code. Article 1390 renders a contract voidable if one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to the contract or if the contracting party's consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. 

·         In this case, the 5 minors were not even parties to the contract involved. Their names were merely dragged into the contract by their mother who claimed a right to represent them.

·         Instead, the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale is an unenforceable or, more specifically, an unauthorized contract.

·         Art. 1403(1) of the NCC provides that a contract is unenforceable, unless ratified, if the contract was entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers. Art. 1317 NCC further provides that "no one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him," and that "a contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting party."

·         In the present case, Clarita did not have authority to convey to Soromero and Rana the undivided share of her minor children. Consequently, the subject deed was unenforceable. 

·         Neither did the children ratify the contract. In fact, they even questioned its validity as to them. Hence, the contract remained unenforceable or unauthorized. No restitution may be ordered from the minors either as to that portion of the purchase price which pertained to their share in the property or at least as to that portion which benefited them because the law does not sanction any.

Whether the notice in writing required by law to be given to the other co-owners was satisfied in the instant case. – YES. 

RE: WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT

·         Article 1623 of the New Civil Code requires a notice in writing to be sent to the co-owners of the property subject of sale in order to appraise them of their right of legal redemption. 

·         In the instant case, such notice came in the form of the deed of extrajudicial partition and sale which their mother Clarita executed.  When she received her copy of the said document, Clarita in effect received a notice in writing of the said sale in behalf of her minor children. The thirty-day period of redemption must be reckoned from this date.

·         The period fixed for legal redemption in accordance with Article 1623 of the New Civil Code will run against a minor co-owner duly represented by a judicially appointed guardian, provided that said guardian is served with the necessary written notice by the vendor.  

·         Corollary to this, the period fixed for legal redemption will also run against a minor co-owner whose property is valued no more than Two Thousand Pesos and who is merely represented by his father or mother with no judicial appointment as a guardian because according to Rule 93, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, the parent in this situation is automatically the child's legal guardian.