° a 6 —— —- ad . — 4 Hs, Tate ; MRISION OF nies Uber oF \PPAIS, (cto. AY “December 13,!13aaIre ; HiSuAR \ Jatlinaey Quesoa City CAREOS YOUNG ot al., nlaint ite and appellants, va, Jose C, THOSON, defendant and appe} Fass. \ t 71. CONTRACTS; CAPACITY OF THE Th°TI'S; NULLITY BY PRISON OF MINORITY, (AGE; MISRTPRIS"NDATION AS Th, AGE. Misrepresentation made by a perty Pee tls age does not estop.hin from denying that he vas of age, or / from asserting that he was unt'er age,/at the -time he entered into the } contract, for the’ breach of wirich an’action is brought. Under the | t ~ | principle of estoppel: the liability resulting fron misrepresentation ' ») has dts juridical source in the capacity of the person making the \ j _ mievepresentation. to! bind himac f, If th ‘son making the misre- * { fon cannot bind hines!f ty 2 dontract, he cannot also b with. A person entering into a contract must..see to. other party. has sufficient. capac{tyto bind himsel?. 2, TORTS AND DAMAGTS; NINOHS, TORTS PY;CONTRACTS.~ A party to a contract who is a minor is not resronsible for his tortious act. The lew 4 wisely provides that his parents or guardian would, \under certain con“ + | ‘ditions, be responsible for such tortious act (art. 1903, Civ. Code) APLEAL from a Judgnent of the Court*of First Instance of Manila. Nontema~ yor, J. ge The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. I Jose Agbulos for ‘appbilants. 4 ; Peyes & Vergara for appellee. © PADILLA, Jue + Macondray &Co., Inc, sold te the defendant a De Soto Airflow Coupe (Shi- . bits Dand C), An initial paynent of #500 was made, and ‘the payment’ of i the balance by installments (Txhitdt 1). The same day, the herein plain~ ' tiffs drew_a check.in the name of the-defendant-for the sim of @2, a On February 19, 1935, for and in consideration of the sum of #2,756,¥ i y | . 05 the “unpaid balance of the purchasé price of the car: Mecondray & Co., Ine, | | ; } 1 } { caused the defendant to indorse’the check. .To sere the’ payrient of the amount thereof, Macondray & Co., Ine. caused the defendant to execute a BrGpiesory note for said anount payable by’ installments. Oshibat A), ang a chettel mortgage;hn tha car, in favor of the aintiffs doing busines! : ulider'the nanie and style of "Tunasan Estates (ean 4¥'B).. On March 29, 1935, the defendant made another payment Of P500 to Vaccndray & Co., Ino. (Shibit 2). Tyo months after the purchédse, the car was damaged as a result of an accident. It was brought to the shop of the Iunéta Motor sa Sompany, abd after having been advised by the defendant, Macondray & Co, Ine, took it from the shop of the luneta Notor Conpany and brought itto —. ~ its ‘shop wheré it has been képt.ever since, The defendant having failed _, to pay the balance of, the note and interest therein ‘stipulated, this hoy > eection was brought. 5 4 Meekre —, 4 lenin The defendant plvads nullity of the contract on, the ground that at the f First time the contrat wad ontered Anto, he was a minor. Vfhe Court of Instance of Manila rendered judgment dismlosing the complaint, from whick plaintiff have appealed. ‘ The appellants adnit that at’ the time the contract wae entered into, f the defendant was a minor, and thet he vas still a minor ut the tine this case une heard by the lover court, but contend that said defendant having held out to be of age can not now be allowed to.avold the consequences 4 of his nisrepresentation, b-cause upon thet misreszesentation, and rengon thereof, Macontray & Co., Inc, sold the car to hin, and the plain= tiffs granted him a loan. , For a valid contract consent of the parties is required (arts. 1261, 12€2, Civil Code). Persons under a-c can not give consent (art. 1263, Civil Gode}. It ds true that the last article refers to arora who ete not eman= cipated, ond that the defendont as the record discloses was_narried but enancipation as to his nerson did not extend_to ids property (art. 317, s Tivit Code; sce. 575, Code of Civil Procedure), except that kind of pro~ perty treated, and only under the conditions ;rovided, in erticle 160 of the Civil Code.\\rhe theory advanced ty the a 4; misrepresente- tion nade by the defendan! as to hiv age estore him from denying that he was under age, at the timo ke entered into the contract, for the tresch of which this action is brought, isquntonstle, boceuse tinder the principle . of estoppel'the Liah s its juri- cal source in th recentation to and iesei tar the person ma! presentation can not bind — Linself ty a contract, fhe .can not.also be bound ty any wisrepresentation he may have made in connection therewith.(a) person entering into a con- tract must see to it that the other party ligs sufficient capacity to bind - bfinself. /For thet reason the law provides-that if the cohtract of sale is declared hull, the parties are Lound to rgstore or return reciprocally the thing sold with its fruits and the price paid for it with interest; end ify pullity 4s on account of incapacity of one of the contracting parties, the party suffering from such incapacity iis only bound to return what he has profited by the thing sold or by the price reocived: (arts. 1303 end 1304, : C4vil Code), In the instant case, the car is in possccsion of Maccndray & f0., Inc. “ : The contention thet the defendant is responsitle for his tortious act or for having caused damage to the car meets vith the same legal obstacle “ of the(efendant's incspacity to bind himsclf{ To brddge that chasm or to £411 the gap thé law wisely provides thatthis parents or guardian wes would, under certain conditions, be responsible for such tortious act (art. - 1903, Civil Code). “eS The proposition advanced’ by the appellants us to the dofeniant's res~ . “¢ ponsibitity for hie tortious uct ie open tojan attack of Anconsistency, : in that 4f it dn truo that they have nothing}#o do with Maccndray &Co., > Inc., a0 far aa the loan granted the defendant 4s concerned, why do they i ack to be reimbursed for’ tho danage’caused to the car in which they dis~ a clad any intorest? |We. ‘The defendant haa paid P1,000 on nccount of the jiurchase price of the car. Thore is no vvidence of the amount of damage caused to the car. It has been used by the defendant for tvo months, ‘The reciprocal return of the thing sold and the price paid for it and interest as a result of the nullity of the contract neod not be ordered, because, as already stated, the car is now in possession of Macondray & Co., Inc., and the aum of #1,606 Faid and its interest are sufficient to compensate for the use of the cer, In view of the conclusion arrived at, we deen it unnecessary to take up and pass upon the otler quedtions raised ty the appellants, Ju Judgnent appeuled fron is affirmed, with coats against the appellants. So ontered. Yoran, Bengzon, Lopes Vito, and Tuason, JJ., concur. Judgment affirmed. = 39 0,6, 953