UY SOO LIM vs.

BENITO TAN UNCHUAN, FRANCISCA PASTRANO and BASILIO CEFRANO UY BUNDAN, FISHER; September 7, 1918

(APPEAL from a judgment of the CFI of Cebu dismissing the annulment of a contract made by Uy Soo Lim to Francisca Pastrano re: transferring all his interest in the estate of the late Santiago to Francisca.) GIST: Chinese guy comes to the Phil.->marries->goes back to China gets a girl pregnant, gives birth to a boy-> Fil. Wife only gives birth to girls.-> Guy wants to give his only son most of his wealth (lions share)-> legitimate children say NO-> AKO LEGAL WIFE ISSUES FACTS: 1. Santiago Pastrano Uy Toco, 13 years old, Chinese came to the Philippines 2. August 2 1882: He married Candida Vivares, a Filipina woman, at Mambajao, Cagayan. They had 2 daughters, Francisca and Concepcion. Francisca is a defendant in this suit and is the wife of the codefendant, Benito Tan Unchuan. 3. At the time of this marriage, Santiago Pastrano possessed very little property a tienda worth about P2k. However, when he died, his wealth amassed to a large estate that he acquired with Candida. 4. 1892: Santiago stayed in China for less than a year and he had an affair with Chan Quieng or Chan Ni Yu (who later claims that what they did in China was equivalent to a marriage in Chinese law and customs). 5. Santiago and Quieng never saw each other again but she write him letters that she bore him a son, plaintiff Uy Soo Lim. Believing this, Santiago allegedly dedicated to him a large amount in his will 7/9 to be exact. 6. Oct 21, 1904: CFI Cebu ordered Benito Tan Unchuan, the executor of the testamentary estate of Santiago Pastrano to deliver to Basilio Uy Bundan (brother of Santiago), guardian of Francisca Pastrano, Concepcion Pastrano, and Uy Soo Lim, the property to which they were entitled under the Santiagos will.- order was complied with and the administration of the testamentary estate declared closed. 7. Oct 18, 1910, the court, issued an order on to Basilio to already present a plan of distribution of the estate in accordance with the will since Francisca has already reached majority, Concepcion will in a few months and Uy Soo Lim already got married in 1910.-> But Basilio didnt readily comply witht the order and before the plan of distribution, obejections re: implementing the provisions of the will were brought to this court. 8. Thus, motions were raised In Court: a. May 25, 1991: Candidas motion-She claimed the right to of the estate as the legitimate widow of Santiago. She also asked that the administration of said estate reopened and the rights of the persons readjudged and determined according to law. A motion of similar purport was filed by her in the matter of the guardianship of Uy Soo Lim et al. b. June 5, 1911: Francisca and Concepcions motion- re: guardianship of Uy Soo Lim et al., in which they opposed the distribution of the estate of Santiago in accordance with the terms of his will, alleging that Uy Soo Lim was not entitled under the law to the amount of the estate assigned him in the will since the alleged marriage of their dad to his mom was null and void. They also claimed that Uy Soo Lim was not a son, legitimate or illegitimate of their dad. Thus, they asked for a suspension of the distribution and a reopening of the matter of the testamentary estate of Santiago Pastrano and that the rights of all persons in interest be readjudged and determined according to law. c. Oct. 7, 1911: Chan Quiengs motion and asked that she be declared entitled to of the estate on account that she was the legitimate wife of Santiago according to the laws and customs of China.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Whats with all the fuss?: If Uy Soo Lim was illegitmate: hes only entitled to 1/3 of Santiagos share in the conjugal estate or 1/6 total not 7/9. (THOU SHALL NOT GET A LIONS SHARE ILLEGITMATE CHILDDDDD) March 13, 1911: Uy Soo Lim goes to Manila because he gets paranoid will all the protests regarding his inheritance which by the way he was expecting. He even already withdrew from the estate amounts worth P26,800 for his personal use. and continued spending thereafter. At the end, an agreement was reached between Choa Tek Hee (lawyer/ cunning merchant of the plaintiff) and the plaintiff, of the one part, and Tan Unchuan and Del Rosario, an attorney of Cebu, representing the interest of Candida, Francisca and Concepcion, on the other, to submit the entire matter in dispute to the judgment of three respectable Chinese merchants/lawyers designated. These advisers came to the conclusion that the sum of P82, 500 should be accepted by plaintiff in full satisfaction and relinquishment of all his right, title, and interest in and to the estate of the deceased Santiago, and this recommendation was accepted by Choa Tek Hee and plaintiff and by Tan Unchuan and Del Rosario. Candida and Concepcion later sold their shares to Francisca. But after the agreed amount was paid in installments by Francisca and after the plaintiff spent most of it, Uy Soo Lim, 3 years after attaining the age of majority, commenced this present action to rescind and annul the contract by which he had sold and transferred to Francisca Pastrano his interest in the estate of Santiago Pastrano. TC: Uy Soo Lim was a minor at the time of the execution of the contract in question, but that he not only failed to repudiate it promptly upon reaching his majority but tacitly ratified it by disposing of the greater part of the proceeds after he became of age and after he had full knowledge of the facts upon which he now seeks to disaffirm the agreement.

ISSUE: WON the plaintiff might have the right to rescind this contract on the ground of minority? HELD: NO. The right of the minor to rescind, upon attaining his majority, a contract entered into during his minority is subject to the conditions (1) that the election to rescind must be made within a reasonable time after majority and (2) that all of the consideration which was in the minor's possession upon his reaching the majority must be returned. The disposal of any part of the consideration after the attainment of majority imports an affirmance of the contract. Reasoning: Because, with full knowledge of his rights in the premises, he failed to disaffirm his contract within a reasonable time after reaching majority; and Because he not only failed to tender, or offer, to produce and pay the consideration in esse when he reached majority, and when he filed his action, but proceeded, after such events, to demand, collect and dispose of such consideration, when according to his own statement under oath he had no other funds with which to make reimbursement. NOTE RE: MINORITY AND NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE: Argument for appellee: it having been shown that appellant is a Chinese citizen, and that under the law of China he was of age when he executed the contract here in dispute his contractual capacity must be determined by his national law ( estatuti personal). ->SC: decide on whats more favorable to appellant, that is-> he was a minor at the time of the execution of the contract makes it unnecessary for us to decide this question or to consider the effect of the marriage of appellant before attaining the age of twenty-one upon his contractual capacity. DISPOSITION: TC AFFIRMED. Uy Soo Lim loses.