Badillo vs. Ferrer

The Court held that a parent, as an automatic legal guardian of a minor child's property valued at not more than P2,000.00 under Rule 93, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, possesses only powers of administration and cannot alienate or encumber the minor's property without prior judicial authorization. A sale executed without such authority is not voidable but unenforceable under Article 1403(1) of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the Court held that the 30-day period for a co-owner's right of legal redemption under Article 1623 begins upon written notice to the co-owner's legal representative, including a parent acting as an automatic guardian, and runs against minor co-owners.

Macario Badillo died intestate in 1966, survived by his widow, Clarita Ferrer, and five minor children. He left a parcel of registered land with a house valued at P7,500.00. Each minor inherited a 1/12 share worth P625.00. In 1967, Clarita Ferrer, in her own behalf and purportedly as natural guardian of the minors, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale conveying the entire property to the spouses Gregorio Soromero and Eleuteria Rana. The deed was registered, and a new title was issued to the buyers. In 1968, the minors' aunt, Modesta Badillo, was appointed as their judicial guardian. In 1970, this guardian filed a complaint seeking annulment of the sale of the minors' shares and the exercise of their right of legal redemption over the mother's share.

• Macario Badillo died intestate on February 4, 1966, survived by his widow, Clarita Ferrer, and five minor children: Alberto (16), Nenita (14), Hilly (12), Cristy (9), and Maria Salome (5).
• His estate included a 77-square-meter parcel of registered land with a house in Lumban, Laguna, valued at P7,500.00. Each minor inherited a 1/12 share valued at P625.00.
• On January 18, 1967, Clarita Ferrer, acting in her own behalf and as the minors' natural guardian, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale conveying the entire property to the spouses Gregorio Soromero and Eleuteria Rana. The Register of Deeds recorded the deed and issued a new title to the buyers.
• On November 11, 1968, Modesta Badillo, the minors' aunt, was appointed by the court as the guardian of the persons and properties of the minors.
• On July 23, 1970, this judicial guardian filed a complaint seeking the annulment of the sale of the minors' 5/12 collective share and the exercise of their right of legal redemption over the mother's 7/12 share.

• The defendants-appellants (buyers) argued that the 30-day period for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code commenced on January 18, 1967, when the minors' mother, as their legal guardian, received written notice of the sale via the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale. Consequently, the period had long expired.
• They contended that the sale of the minors' shares was, at most, a voidable contract under Article 1390, requiring mutual restitution upon annulment, with the minors liable only to the extent of benefits received under Article 1399.

• The minors-appellees, through their judicial guardian, argued for the annulment of the sale of their shares and the right to redeem their mother's share, implicitly asserting the invalidity of the sale as to them and the timeliness of their redemption attempt.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Court of Appeals properly certified the case to the Supreme Court as involving pure questions of law.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the sale of the minors' inherited shares by their mother, as natural guardian, was valid and binding upon them.
  2. Whether the minors' right of legal redemption over their mother's share had prescribed.
  3. What the appropriate legal consequence is for the invalid sale of the minors' shares.

• Procedural: The Court accepted the case, treating it as a petition for review on certiorari, as the issues presented were indeed pure questions of law.
• Substantive:
  1. The Court ruled that the sale of the minors' 5/12 share was unenforceable. Clarita Ferrer, as the automatic legal guardian of properties valued below P2,000.00 per child under Rule 93, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, had only administrative powers. She lacked authority to alienate the minors' property without prior court approval, rendering the contract unauthorized and unenforceable under Article 1403(1) of the Civil Code.
  2. The Court ruled that the minors' right of legal redemption over their mother's 7/12 share had prescribed. The 30-day period under Article 1623 began when written notice of the sale was given to the minors' legal representative. Since the mother was their automatic legal guardian, her receipt of the Deed on January 18, 1967, constituted such notice. The offer to redeem, made by the judicial guardian appointed in 1968 and formalized in a 1970 complaint, was well beyond the 30-day period.
  3. Because the sale of the minors' share was unenforceable (not voidable), no restitution from the minors was warranted. The Court ordered the buyers to reconvey the minors' 5/12 share to them and confirmed the buyers' ownership over the mother's 7/12 share.

• Powers of a Natural Guardian over a Minor's Property Valued at ≤ P2,000.00 — Under Article 320 of the Civil Code and Rule 93, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, a parent is the automatic legal administrator (guardian) of a minor child's property if its value does not exceed P2,000.00. This role confers powers of administration only; the power to alienate or encumber the property requires prior judicial authorization. The Court applied this to find the mother acted beyond her authority.
• Commencement of the Redemption Period for Co-Owners — Article 1623 of the Civil Code mandates that the right of legal redemption must be exercised within 30 days from written notice by the vendor. The Court held that this notice must be given to the co-owner's legal representative. For a minor co-owner, this includes a parent acting as an automatic guardian. The period runs against the minor from the date of such notice, as established in Villasor v. Medel.
• Unenforceable vs. Voidable Contracts — A contract entered into in the name of another by one without authority or legal representation is unenforceable under Article 1403(1), not merely voidable under Article 1390. An unenforceable contract is not susceptible to ratification by the parties if the person on whose behalf it was executed does not ratify it. The Court used this distinction to deny the buyers' claim for restitution.

• "The powers given to her by the laws as the natural guardian covers only matters of administration and cannot include the power of disposition." — This passage succinctly states the core limitation on a natural guardian's authority, central to the Court's ruling on the minors' share.
• "When Clarita Ferrer Badillo signed and received on January 18, 1967, her copy of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale... she also in effect received the notice in writing required by Article 1623 in behalf of her children." — This finding directly applies the doctrine on the commencement of the redemption period to the facts, leading to the holding of prescription.

• Villasor v. Medel — Cited as controlling precedent interpreting the predecessor of Article 1623 (Article 1524 of the Old Civil Code). The Court followed its strict construction, holding that the redemption period is peremptory and runs against a minor co-owner represented by a guardian upon receipt of written notice.
• Nario v. Philippine American Life Insurance Co. — Cited for the principle that a natural guardian's powers are limited to administration and that judicial authorization is required for alienation of the ward's property.
• Conejero, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. — Cited to support the mode of giving written notice of sale to a co-owner's legal representative, which in this case was the mother-guardian.

• Article 320, Civil Code — Establishes the father or mother as the legal administrator of the child's property under parental authority, with a bond required if the property exceeds P2,000.00.
• Article 1623, Civil Code — Governs the period and method of notice for exercising the right of legal pre-emption or redemption by co-owners.
• Article 1403(1), Civil Code — Defines unenforceable contracts as those entered into in the name of another by one without authority or legal representation.
• Article 1317, Civil Code — States that no one may contract in the name of another without authorization or legal right to represent, and that such a contract is unenforceable unless ratified.
• Rule 93, Section 7, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that when a child's property is worth P2,000.00 or less, the father or mother is the legal guardian without need for court appointment.

• N/A. The decision was unanimous, with Chief Justice Teehankee and Justices Narvasa, Cruz, and Paras concurring.

• N/A. There were no dissenting opinions recorded.