February 1920 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
041 Phil 869:
[G.R. No. 14084. February 16, 1920. ]
GREGORIO JOAQUIN Y TUASON, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MAXIMO JOAQUIN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
Modesto Reyes and Eliseo Ymzon for Appellants.
Sumulong & Estrada for Appellee.
2. CONTRACTS; MINORS; LACK OF CAPACITY AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION. — The plaintiff claims that the children of the defendant by first marriage, being minors, could not contract with their father through a relative who was not authorized by them. Held: That the contract thus executed although invalid could be ratified by said minors upon arriving at majority.
The plaintiffs herein are Maximo Joaquin’s children by his second marriage, that is, with Francisca Tuason, and the defendants herein are Maximo Joaquin and his children by his first marriage, that it, with Juana Bernardo. The parties having entered into an agreement, the question in this case is reduced to Maximo Joaquin’s liquidating all of his properties, determining the portion corresponding to him, to his children by first marriage and to the children by his second marriage. Maximo Joaquin presented this liquidation in which he enters, the following items:
SUMS TO BE DEDUCTED.
The capital and earnings of the first marriage
of Maximo Joaquin, i. e., with Juana
Bernardo, which was brought wholly
to his second marriage, i. e., with
Francisca Tuason and with which the
properties A, B, C, D, and E were acquired P3,677.00
This sum of P3,677 deducted from the grand total
of P163,250 gives a balance of P159,573
as net profit, one-half of which belongs to
the deceased Juana Bernardo, or rather to
her children-Elias, Dorotea, Sixto, Maria,
and Simeona Joaquin y Bernardo, as the net
profit of their capital in the partnership between
them and their father Maximo Joaquin P79,786.50
SHARE OF MAXIMO JOAQUIN.
For his share of one-half oś the capital and earnings
of his first conjugal partnership with his
wife Juana Bernardo P1,838.50
For his share of one-half of the sum of P79,786.50,
which is the sum total of the asset of the
conjugal partnership with his second wife.
Francisca Tuason P39,893.25
SHARE OF THE DECEASED JUANA BERNARDO, OR HER CHILDREN ELIAS, DOROTEA, SIXTO, MARIA, AND SIMEONA JOAQUIN Y BERNARDO.
For their share of one-half of the capital and earnings
obtained during the first marriage of
Maximo Joaquin with the said Juana Bernardo P1,838.50
For their share of one-half of the sum of P159,575,
the net partnership profit obtained after
deducting the capital of the partnership
between Maximo Joaquin and his children
of the first marriage Elias, Dorotea, Sixto,
Maria, and Simeona Joaquin y Bernardo P79,786.50
SHARE OF THE DECEASED FRANCISCO TUASON, OR HER CHILDREN GREGORIO, FIDELA, DOMINGO, AND FELIZA JOAQUIN Y TUASON.
For their share of one-half of the sum of P79,786.50,
the net profit obtained during the marriage of
Maximo Joaquin with his second wife,
Francisca Tuason, after deducting from the
total liquidated profit (P163,250) the capital
of the first conjugal partnership (P3,677)
and one-half of the net profit (P79,786.50)
corresponding to the children of the first marriage P39,893.25
Value of all the properties included in this liquidation P163,250.00
Share of Maximo Joaquin P41,731.75
Share of the children of the first marriage P81,625.00
Share of the children of the second marriage P39,893.25
Grand total P163,250.00
The lower court rendered its judgment accepting the foregoing liquidation and ordering, in accordance therewith, the delivery of the properties to the respective interested parties. From this judgment plaintiffs appealed.
Maximo Joaquin’s liquidation is based on the following considerations:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
That, the sum of P1,800, being the profit during his conjugal partnership with his first wife, one-half of said sum belonged to him and the other half to his children of the first marriage; that, having entered into a partnership with his said children with this capital (P1,800), the sum of P3,677, to which the said capital amounted when he was married for the second time to Francisca Tuason, also belonged in equal parts to him and to his children of the first marriage; that, having brought this entire capital of P3,677 to his second marriage — as the capital of the partnership between him and his children of the first marriage — and this capital having produced P159,573 during his second marriage, one-half of the latter amount should belong to his children of the first marriage, as his partners; that the other half of this sum of P159,573, which should be treated as the earnings of the second marriage, should be divided into two equal parts, one of which belongs to him and the other to his children of the second marriage. The legality of this liquidation depends upon whether or not it may be accepted that, when Maximo Joaquin was married for the second time to Francisca Tuason, he brought to this second marriage the sum of P3,677 as the capital of the partnership he had with his children of the first marriage.
The appellant alleged that, if there was such partnership between Maximo Joaquin and his codefendants, it was a universal partnership and, consequently, the latter should also bring to the liquidation the properties they acquired during the existence of this partnership. This claim, however, is devoid of any foundation. According to the evidence said partnership was limited to only the sum of P1,800. It was, therefore, a limited partnership for the sum of P1,800.
The appellants also claim that, in accordance with the laws in force on the date of the organization of said partnership between Maximo Joaquin and his children of his first marriage, one-half of the said sum of P1,800, inherited by his children from their mother, Juana Bernardo, partook of the nature of adventitious property, the usufruct of which lawfully belonged to Maximo Joaquin. Although this claim is true, nevertheless, when Maximo Joaquin entered into a partnership with his children for said sum of P1,800, agreeing to divide with them the profits thereby obtained, he renounced this usufruct. There was no law prohibiting him from making this renunciation.
The appellants contend that, at any rate, Maximo Joaquin’s children of the first marriage being then below age at the time said partnership was organized, they (children) could not enter into such contract with their father. But, it will be noted that this contract was entered into between Maximo Joaquin and his children of the first marriage, who were represented by Simeon Bernardo.
It is said by the appellants that, even in this case, such contract could not be made inasmuch as Simeon Bernardo, being a mere uncle of Maximo Joaquin’s children, did not have the legal representation of the latter. Simeon Bernardo did not in fact have the legal representation of Maximo Joaquin’s children of the first marriage and the partnership agreement he had entered into with the said Maximo Joaquin in representation of the latter is invalid. However, it was an agreement which could be ratified by said children upon their attaining majority (article 1259, Civil Code), and no doubt there was such ratification. The youngest of said children became of age in the year 1904. As they grew old and were able to work, they helped their father in the cultivation of the lands for the benefit of the partnership, and when all of them reached the age of majority, they assented thereto and continued helping their father in said cultivation. It is hardly necessary to mention this, for the defendants’ attitude in setting up their defense in this case, precisely invoking the existence of the partnership, is a proof that they ratify said partnership. It does not appear that they had ever repudiated it. On the other hand, up to the time this action was filed, neither the defendant, nor their father during his lifetime had ever shown their objection to the continuance of this partnership. This ratification has therefore produced the effect of curing this partnership of its original vice, and it was lawfully in existence from the moment of its organization.
It further clearly appears from the evidence that the properties which are the object of this liquidation came from the sum of P3,677, which from the beginning was the capital of the defendants’ partnership aforesaid when Maximo Joaquin entered into second marriage with the plaintiff mother, and that such properties are but the legitimate fruits of the defendants’ mutual and faithful cooperation with each other.
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.