Article 39, New Civil Code of the Philippines: The modifications or limitations in the capacity to act
Article 39: The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act: age, insanity, imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality, family relations, alienage, absence, insolvency, and trusteeship.
A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is qualified for all civil acts of civil life, except in cases specified by law. (As repealed by the Family Code and RA 6809, where the age of majority now is 18 years.)
A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is qualified for all civil acts of civil life, except in cases specified by law. (As repealed by the Family Code and RA 6809, where the age of majority now is 18 years.)
This article provides the restrictions or limitations but also those circumstances that modify the capacity to act under the law.
The consequences of the circumstances of these are governed in this Code, other codes, the Rules of Court, and in special laws. It also asserts that the capacity to act is not limited on account of religious belief or political opinion.
Restrictions on the capacity to act:
Restrictions on the capacity to act:
1.Minority/Age: The age of majority is 18 years. (RA 6809). Therefore, minors cannot give consent to contracts.
Illustration 1:
If A and B are both minors. A sold his car to B for 400, 000.00. A delivered it and B paid. The contract is unenforceable.
Article 1403 of the New Civil Code NCC, one of the classics of an unenforceable contract is where both parties are incompetent to give consent. But the contract can be cleansed of its defect when their parents or guardians ratify the same. (Art. 1407, NCC)
If A and B are both minors. A sold his car to B for 400, 000.00. A delivered it and B paid. The contract is unenforceable.
Article 1403 of the New Civil Code NCC, one of the classics of an unenforceable contract is where both parties are incompetent to give consent. But the contract can be cleansed of its defect when their parents or guardians ratify the same. (Art. 1407, NCC)
Illustration 2:
A minor sold his car to B, a person of age. B paid A and A delivered the car to B. This contract is voidable.
If one of the parties to a contract is incapable of giving consent, the contract is voidable(Art. 1390, NCC). But if the parents or guardian of the said incompetent party would ratify the same, it is cleansed of its defect from the moment of signing or perfection of the contract of the minor.
In both cases, there is a restriction of capacity to act, yet the law recognizes effects of the said contracts.
Mercado and Mercado v. Espiritu, 37 Phils. 215, minors stated that they were of legal age when they entered into a contract of sale. The truth is that they were not of legal age. They could not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of their obligation. This is so because of the principle of estoppel.
Domingo Mercado and Josefa Mercado, plaintiffs-appellants, v. Jose Espiritu, administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu, defendant-appellee, G.R. No. L-11872, December 1, 1917
Perfecto Salas Rodriguez for appellants.
Vicente Foz for defendant-appellee.
Facts:
This is an appeal by the bill of exceptions (A bill of exception is a legal pleading filed to complain on appeal about a matter that would not otherwise appear in the record. It is a statement of objections to the decision, or instructions of a judge in the trial of a dispute), filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs from the judgment of September 22, 2018, in which the judge of the Seventh Judicial District dismissed the complaint filed by the plaintiffs and order them to keep perpetual silence in regard to the litigated land, and to pay costs of the suit.
By a complaint dated April 9, 1913, counsel for Domingo and Josefa Mercado brought suit in the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Bulacan, against Luis Espiritu, but, as the latter died soon thereafter, the complaint was amended by being directed against Jose Espiritu in his capacity of his administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu.
Luis Espiritu entered into a contract of sale with the heirs of his sister Margarita: Domingo and Josefa Mercado, who pretended to be of legal age to give their consent to a contract of sale of the land that they inherited from their Mother Margarita.
The siblings Domingo and Josefa sought for the annulment of the said contract alleging that they were of minor age during the perfection of contract.
Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale is valid when the minors presented themselves to be of legal age at the time of perfection of the contract.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the contract of sale is VALID even if it were made and entered into by minors, who pretended to be of legal age.
The ruling was in accordance with the provisions of the law on the doctrine of estoppel and sec. 6 (a) Rule 123 which states that 'Whenever a party has, in its declaration, an act or an omission, intentionally or deliberately led another party to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising of such declaration, be permitted to falsify it.'
Furthermore, the sale of the real estate made by a minor who pretended to be of legal age, when in fact, he is not, is VALID, and he will not be permitted to excuse himself from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by him or to have it annulled. The judgment that holds such sale to be valid and absolves the purchaser from the complaint filed against him does not violate laws relative to the sale of minor's property, nor the judicial rules established in consonance therewith.
The fact that a minor at the time of entering into a contract falsely represented to the person with whom he dealt that he had attained the age of majority will create an estoppel against the infant/minor, the other party had a good reason to believe that the minor is capable of contracting.
If one of the parties to a contract is incapable of giving consent, the contract is voidable(Art. 1390, NCC). But if the parents or guardian of the said incompetent party would ratify the same, it is cleansed of its defect from the moment of signing or perfection of the contract of the minor.
In both cases, there is a restriction of capacity to act, yet the law recognizes effects of the said contracts.
Mercado and Mercado v. Espiritu, 37 Phils. 215, minors stated that they were of legal age when they entered into a contract of sale. The truth is that they were not of legal age. They could not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of their obligation. This is so because of the principle of estoppel.
Domingo Mercado and Josefa Mercado, plaintiffs-appellants, v. Jose Espiritu, administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu, defendant-appellee, G.R. No. L-11872, December 1, 1917
Perfecto Salas Rodriguez for appellants.
Vicente Foz for defendant-appellee.
Facts:
This is an appeal by the bill of exceptions (A bill of exception is a legal pleading filed to complain on appeal about a matter that would not otherwise appear in the record. It is a statement of objections to the decision, or instructions of a judge in the trial of a dispute), filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs from the judgment of September 22, 2018, in which the judge of the Seventh Judicial District dismissed the complaint filed by the plaintiffs and order them to keep perpetual silence in regard to the litigated land, and to pay costs of the suit.
By a complaint dated April 9, 1913, counsel for Domingo and Josefa Mercado brought suit in the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Bulacan, against Luis Espiritu, but, as the latter died soon thereafter, the complaint was amended by being directed against Jose Espiritu in his capacity of his administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu.
Luis Espiritu entered into a contract of sale with the heirs of his sister Margarita: Domingo and Josefa Mercado, who pretended to be of legal age to give their consent to a contract of sale of the land that they inherited from their Mother Margarita.
The siblings Domingo and Josefa sought for the annulment of the said contract alleging that they were of minor age during the perfection of contract.
Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale is valid when the minors presented themselves to be of legal age at the time of perfection of the contract.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the contract of sale is VALID even if it were made and entered into by minors, who pretended to be of legal age.
The ruling was in accordance with the provisions of the law on the doctrine of estoppel and sec. 6 (a) Rule 123 which states that 'Whenever a party has, in its declaration, an act or an omission, intentionally or deliberately led another party to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising of such declaration, be permitted to falsify it.'
Furthermore, the sale of the real estate made by a minor who pretended to be of legal age, when in fact, he is not, is VALID, and he will not be permitted to excuse himself from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by him or to have it annulled. The judgment that holds such sale to be valid and absolves the purchaser from the complaint filed against him does not violate laws relative to the sale of minor's property, nor the judicial rules established in consonance therewith.
The fact that a minor at the time of entering into a contract falsely represented to the person with whom he dealt that he had attained the age of majority will create an estoppel against the infant/minor, the other party had a good reason to believe that the minor is capable of contracting.
2. Sickness: An insane or demented person or a deaf-mute who does not know how to read and write may not give consent to a contract (Art. 1372 [2] NCC).
These persons may not act with intelligence.
These persons may not act with intelligence.
3. Penalty:
During the service of a sentence of an accused by imprisonment of 12 yrs & 1 day or more, the court may limit the accused's capacity to act or deprive him of some of his rights herein referred to as Civil Interdiction (the state of deprivation by the court of a person’s right)
Civil Interdiction deprives the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of :
During the service of a sentence of an accused by imprisonment of 12 yrs & 1 day or more, the court may limit the accused's capacity to act or deprive him of some of his rights herein referred to as Civil Interdiction (the state of deprivation by the court of a person’s right)
Civil Interdiction deprives the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of :
a.) parental and/or marital authority;
b.) guardianship to person or property;
c.) the right to manage his property;
d.) the right to dispose of such property by any act or conveyance (i.e. he cannot donate) inter vivos.
d.) the right to dispose of such property by any act or conveyance (i.e. he cannot donate) inter vivos.
4. Prodigality
The state of squandering money or property with a morbid desire to prejudice the heirs of a person.
5. Alienage
Aliens cannot acquire land in the Philippines
No private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold land of public domain. (Sec. 7, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
(Cheesman v. CA- a foreigner who marries a Filipino and out of conjugal funds, a private property is acquired, such cannot form part of their community of property because the foreigner is disqualified from acquiring lands in the Phils. Dura lex sed lex
6. Absence
When a person disappears from his domicile, his whereabouts being unknown, he is considered as absent [Art. 382 NCC]. The court can appoint an administrator at the instance of an interested person, a relative or a friend. However, it is not absolute such that the person may still recover his rights should he appear. In fact, if someone can prove that he acquired the title over his properties under administration, the administration would cease.
7.Insolvency or trusteeship
•If declared insolvent, one cannot dispose of his properties existing at the time of the commencement of the proceedings for insolvency.
•No payments of property or credit can be made to him (Sections 18 and 24, Act No. 56)
8. Family Relations
By reason of public policy, where the possibility that one may exert undue influence over the other, the ff restrictions are applied:
A husband and wife cannot donate to one another. This extends to the common-law relationship (Art. 87, family code); or cannot sell to one another, as a rule, except in cases where they are governed by complete separation of property regime or when there is the separation of properties during the marriage;
Husband and wife cannot enter into a universal partnership of all properties (Art. 1782, NCC)
The law also declares the following void marriages:
a.) Those contracted among relatives in the direct line, whether legitimate or illegitimate (Art.37 Family Code); or
b.) Those in the collateral line up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity (Art. 38, Family Code).
9. Deaf-mute
A person who is blind or deaf cannot be a witness in a will (Art. 820 NCC)
But a deaf-mute may execute a will (Art. 807, NCC) or
A blind person can execute a will ( Art. 808, NCC)
On the other hand, POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF does not affect the capacity to act. In fact, sec. 5, Art. III, 1987 Constitution provides that no religious test is required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Sources:
Family Code of the Philippines by Judge Vincent S. Albano
Civil Code of the Philippines by Paras
Family Code of the Philippines by Judge Vincent S. Albano
Civil Code of the Philippines by Paras
Comments
Post a Comment