CABALES vs.

CA Case Digest
NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS
FELIANO and ANUNCIANO FELIANO

G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007

FACTS:

Sometime in 1964, Rurfino Cabales died leaving behind a parcel of land in

Southern Leyte to his wife, Saturnina and six children, namely, Bonifacio,
Francisco, Alberto, Albino, Lenora, and Rito. On 1971, the brothers and co-
owners Bonifacio, Alberto and Albino sold the property to Dr. Corrompido
with a right to repurchase within eight (8) years. On 1972, prior to the
redemption of the property, Alberto died leaving behind his wife and son, Nelson,
herein petitioner.

Sometime later and within the redemption period, the said brothers and
their mother, in lieu of Alberto, tendered their payment to Dr. Corrompido.
Subsequently, Saturnina, and her four children, Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and
Leonora sold the said land to Spouses Feliano. It was provided in the deed of
sale that the shares of Nelson and Rito, being minor at the time of the sale,
will be held in trust by the vendee and will paid upon them reaching the
age of 21.

In 1986, Rito received the sum of 1,143 pesos from the Spouses Feliano
representing his share from the proceeds of the sale of the property. It was only
in 1988, that Nelson learned of the sale from his uncle, Rito. He signified his
intention to redeem the property in 1993 but it was only in 1995 that he filed a
complaint for redemption against the Spouses Feliano. The respondent Spouses
averred that the petitioners are estopped from denying the sale since: (1) Rito
already received his share; and (2) Nelson, failed to tender the total amount of
the redemption price.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favour of Spouses Feliano on the ground that
Nelson was no longer entitled to the property since, his right was subrogated by
Saturnina upon the death of his father, Alberto. It also alleged that Rito had no
more right to redeem since Saturnina, being his legal guardian at the time of the
sale was properly vested with the right to alienate the same.

The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court stating that the sale
made by Saturnina in behalf of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sale made by a legal guardian (Saturnina) in behalf of

the minors were binding upon them.

HELD:

With regard to the share of Rito, the contract of sale was valid. Under
Section 1, Rule 96 “A guardian shall have the care and custody of the
person of his ward, and the management of his estate, or the management
of the estate only. x x x” Indeed, the legal guardian only has the plenary
power of administration of the minor’s property. It does not include the
power of alienation which needs judicial authority. Thus, when Saturnina,
as legal guardian of petitioner Rito, sold the latter’s pro indiviso share in
subject land, she did not have the legal authority to do so. Accordingly, the
contract as to the share of Rito was unenforceable. However, when he
received the proceeds of the sale, he effectively ratified it. This act of
ratification rendered the sale valid and binding as to him.
With respect to petitioner Nelson, the contract of sale was void. He was a
minor at the time of the sale. Saturnina or any and all the other co-owners were
not his legal guardians; rather it was his mother who if duly authorized by the
courts, could validly sell his share in the property. Consequently, petitioner
Nelson retained ownership over their undivided share in the said property.
However, Nelson can no longer redeem the property since the thirty day
redemption period has expired and thus he remains as co-owner of the
property with the Spouses Feliano.