THE MINORS ALBERTO, NENITA, HILLY, CRISTY, AND MARIA SALOME ALL SURNAMED BADILLO, ASSISTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN MODESTA BADILLO, VS. CLARITA FERRER, DEFENDANT, GREGORIO SOROMERO AN…

Badillo versus Ferrer

The Case

This is a case about five minor children, the Badillo children, suing their own mother and the couple who bought the family home. The children, assisted by their aunt as guardian, asked the court to annul the sale of their inherited shares in a small parcel of registered land in Lumban, Laguna, and in the alternative to allow them to redeem their mother's share as co-owners. The case matters because it settles two questions every reviewee must know: when does the thirty-day period for legal redemption begin to run against a minor co-owner, and what is the nature of a contract by which a mother, without judicial authority, sells property belonging to her minor children. The Supreme Court answers that the redemption period runs against the minor once written notice reaches the parent who is the child's legal guardian by operation of law, and that the unauthorized sale of the children's shares is not voidable but unenforceable.

Procedural History

The children's guardian filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance for annulment of the sale of their shares and, conceding the validity of the sale of their mother's share, for legal redemption of that share. The trial court, invoking the Nario case, annulled the sale of the minors' participation and allowed them to redeem their mother's sold participation. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court found that the issues raised were pure questions of law and certified the case to the Supreme Court, which treated it as a petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Macario Badillo died intestate in February 1966, survived by his widow Clarita Ferrer and five minor children: Alberto, Nenita, Hilly, Cristy, and Maria Salome. He left a registered parcel of land of seventy-seven square meters in Lumban, Laguna, with a house on it, valued at seven thousand five hundred pesos. Each child therefore inherited a one-twelfth share worth six hundred twenty-five pesos, which is less than the two thousand pesos mentioned in Article 320 of the Civil Code.

In January 1967, the widow, in her own behalf and as natural guardian of the children, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale conveying the property to the spouses Gregorio Soromero and Eleuteria Rana. The Register of Deeds recorded the deed and issued a new transfer certificate of title to the buyers. In November 1968, Modesta Badillo, a sister of the deceased, obtained guardianship over the persons and properties of the minors, without personal notice to their mother.

In July 1970, the guardian caused the minors to file the complaint for annulment of the sale of their shares and for legal redemption of their mother's share. The buyers argued that the thirty-day redemption period had long expired, that the sale of the children's shares was merely voidable so that restitution should follow, and that the trial court erred in ordering them to re-sell the remaining portion.

Issues

• Whether or not the thirty-day period for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code had already lapsed when the minors offered to redeem their mother's share.
• Whether or not the sale of the minors' five-twelfths share is a voidable contract under Article 1390, so that restitution may be ordered from the minors.
• Whether or not the buyers may be ordered to re-sell to the minors the remaining seven-twelfths portion of the property.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1623 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners. The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners.

This fixes the thirty-day period and its starting point, written notice from the vendor, which is the heart of the first issue.

Article 320 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 320. The father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority. If the property is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or mother shall give a bond subject to the approval of the Court of First Instance.

This makes the mother the legal administrator of the children's property, which the Court reads together with the rule on guardianship.

Section 7 of Rule 93 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 7. Parents as guardians. When the property of the child under parental authority is worth two thousand pesos or less, the father or the mother, without the necessity of court appointment, shall be his legal guardian. When the property of the child is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or the mother shall be considered guardian of the child's property, with the duties and obligations of guardians under these rules, and shall file the petition required by section 2 hereof. For good reasons the court may, however, appoint another suitable person.

This automatically makes the mother the legal guardian because each child's share is only six hundred twenty-five pesos.

Article 1403 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: (1) Those 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.

This is the provision the Court applies to characterize the sale of the children's shares.

Article 1317 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1317. 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. 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.

This confirms that the mother acted beyond her powers as natural guardian.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the redemption period had already expired. The mother was automatically the legal guardian of her children because each share was worth less than two thousand pesos. As such she had the plenary powers of a judicial guardian, except the power to alienate the children's property without judicial authorization. When she signed and received her copy of the deed in January 1967, she in effect received the written notice required by Article 1623 on behalf of her children. The period began to run from that receipt. The judicial guardian was appointed only in November 1968, and the offer to redeem came later still, so the right had lapsed. The Court relied on its earlier ruling that the law, in fixing the starting point of the period, is presumed to exclude all others, and that the shortness of the period is itself an index of its peremptoriness.

On the second issue, the Court held that the deed is not voidable under Article 1390, because the minors were not even parties to the contract; their names were merely dragged into it by their mother. The deed is an unenforceable or unauthorized contract under Articles 1403 and 1317. The mother had no authority to convey the children's shares, and the children never ratified the deed; they questioned it. Hence no restitution may be ordered from them.

On the third issue, the Court held that the matter had become academic. Since the thirty-day period had lapsed, the buyers cannot be ordered to re-sell the remaining seven-twelfths portion.

Doctrine

The thirty-day period for legal redemption under Article 1623 runs against a minor co-owner who is duly represented by a judicially appointed guardian, provided the guardian is served the written notice by the vendor. It likewise runs against a minor co-owner whose property is worth no more than two thousand pesos and who is represented only by a parent with no judicial appointment, because under Section 7 of Rule 93 the parent is automatically the child's legal guardian. The parent-guardian must first be served written notice of the sale before the period begins to accrue.

A parent's powers as natural guardian cover only administration and do not include the power of disposition. A sale of the minor's property without judicial authority is not voidable but unenforceable under Articles 1403 and 1317, and no restitution may be exacted from the minor who never ratified it.

Disposition

The buyers were ordered to restore to the minors full ownership and possession of their five-twelfths share by executing the proper deed of reconveyance, while the buyers' ownership of the remaining seven-twelfths share was confirmed, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: written notice to the parent who is legal guardian by operation of law starts the thirty-day redemption period against the minor, and a parent's unauthorized sale of the child's property is unenforceable, not voidable. Examiners use this case to test the starting point of legal redemption against minors and the distinction between voidable and unenforceable contracts.