G.R. No.
L-11872 December 01, 1917  Administrator denied all allegations therein
Plaintiffs-Apellants: Domingo and Josefa Mercado
Defendant-Appellee:Jose Espiritu, administrator of the
estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu
This is an appeal by bill of exceptions, filed by the counsel
for the plaintiffs from the judgment of September 1914 in
which the judge of the Seventh Judicial District dismissed
the complaint filed by the plaintiffs and ordered them to
keep perpetual silence in regard to the litigated land, and
to pay the costs of the suit.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
 April 1913 complaint, counsel for Domingo and
Josefa was brought suit in the Court of First
Instance Bulacan, against Luis Espiritu (died soon
after)
o Complaint was amended by being
directed against Jose Espiritu
(administrator of the estate of the
deceased Luis)
o Plaintiffs alleged that they and their
sisters Concepcion and Paz (all
surnamed MERCADO) were the children
and sole heir of the deceased Luis
Espiritu.
 Margarita died in 1897 leaving as paraphernal
property a land of 48 hectares situated in Barrio
Panducot, Calumpit, Bulacan.
o Bound as described in par. 4 of the
amended complaint, saying that the
hereditary portion was already held by
the plaintiffs and their sisters, through
their father Wenceslao (husband of
Margarita)
 In 1910, Luis Espiritu by means of cajolery,
succeeded in getting the plaintiffs to sign a deed
of sale for the sum P400.00.
o Said land assessment was valued
P3,795.00
o ½ of the land belonged to Margarita
Espiritu divided to her children: ½ for the
plaintiffs and ½ for their sisters
Concepcion and Paz
o Said land of plaintiffs alone produces
180 cavanes of rice = P450.00 per
annum.
 Plaintiffs asked that judgement be rendered in
their favor
o To null and void the sale and that
defendant be ordered to deliver and
restore the shares of lands with the
products uncollected since 1901 or
P450.00 per annum and pay costs of suit
contained and alleged that the land, had an area
of only 21 cavanes of rice
o May 1894, Margarita with due
authorization of her husband sold to Luis
Espiritu for the sum of P2,000.00 a
portion of the land (area of 15 cavanes)
o May 1901 Wenceslao, as administrator
of the property of his children sold under
pacto de retro to Luis at the price of P375
an area of 6 cavanes
 This is to meet expenses of the
maintenance of his children
 The amount was still insufficient
he then again borrowed from
Luis a total of P600.00
 May 1910 – plaintiffs alleging themselves to be of
legal age, with their sisters, executed the notarial
instrument inserted integrally in the 5th par.
ratifying said sale under pacto de retro
 Defendant alleged that complaint filed was
unfounded and malicious, and that losses and
damages in the sum of P1000.00 had been
caused to the intestate estate of Luis.
 Jose asked judgement to be rendered by ordering
the plaintiffs to keep perpetual silence with
respect to the land and to pay said intestate
P1000 for losses and damages, and that costs of
the trial be charged against them.
 Plaintiffs denied all the facts set forth
o Defensed that during the execution of the
sale they were still minors
o 4 years fixed by law had not yet elapsed
o Asked that they absolved from the
complaint
 Judgement based on evidences: plaintiffs
excepted and in writing moved for a reopening of
the case and new trial
ISSUE:
Whether or not the plaintiffs were minors during the
execution of the deed of sale
Whether or not the plaintiffs may ask for the annulment of
deed of sale
 Plaintiffs assailed validity of deed of sale on the
ground that they were minors
 1891 Records show that Luis obtained title by
composition with the state
o 3 parcels of land containing 75 hectares,
25 ares and 59 centares
 Upon Luis’ death, his lands passed by inheritance
to his 4 children. 47 hectares was allotted to Luis
and Margarita in equal shares.
 When she died ½ of the land described were
inherited by her children
  By notarial instrument of May 1984, Margarita o They are not permitted to excuse
sold for the sum of P2000.00 to her brother themselves from the fulfillment of the
o Wenceslao and of his children set forth obligations contracted or to have them
that the sale was true which had been annulled in pursuance to Law 6, title 19,
made by his wife to her brother Luis. of 6th Partida
 May 1901, Wenceslao pledged or mortgaged to
For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned to
Luis for P375.00 a part or an area covered by 6
the judgement appealed from have been REFUTED, and
cavanes of seed
deeming said judgement to be in accordance with the law
 It was proven by the testimony of the clerk of
and the evidence of records, the court should, and do
parochial church of Apalit that the baptismal
hereby, AFFIRM the same, with costs against appellants.
register books of that parish 1890-1891 were lost
and burned
o Witness Maria Consejo Mercado
recognized and identified the book which So ordered.
had been kept and taken care of by her
deceased father Wenceslao
 This bear the attestation of the
plaintiff Domingo and Josefa
were born on August 1890 and
July 1891, respectively
 She corroborated the averment
of the plaintiffs’ minority, by
personal registration certificates
 Products yielded had been, since 1894, utilized
by Luis
 Cousin of Wenceslao testified that he mediated in
several of their transactions
o Though when shown the deed he stated
that he was not acquainted with its
contents
o He testified that no instrument was
presented before for identification

RULING:

CONCLUSIONS:

 The evidence adduced at the trial does not show

that the purchaser Luis employed fraud, deceit,
violence, or intimidation in order to effect sale.
 Luis was, during his lifetime and now after his
death, is in lawful possession of the parcel of land
by virtue of the title of conveyance of ownership
 Plaintiffs have absolutely no right to recover said
parcel of land
 Since the signature and hand writing of the
notarial document between Wenceslao and Luis
was authentic as identified by Consejo, there is no
legal ground or well-founded reason why it should
be rejected.
 And since the baptismal registration could not be
presented as there are no certified copies, it does
not constitute sufficient proof of the birth of
Domingo and Josefa.
 Sales of Real Estate made by minors who pretend
to be of legal age, when they are not, is valid.