Braganza, et al v.

De Villa Abrille
Petitioner: Rosario de Branganza (and sons Rodolfo and Guillermo)
Respondent: Fernando de Villa Abrille

Facts
- The petitioners loaned PHP 70,000 from Villa Abrille on Oct. 30, 1944 in Japanese war notes.
They promised to pay him PHP 10,000 in legal Philippine currency when the hostilities cease plus
2% per annum.
- Rodolfo and Guillermo were 18 and 16 years old respectively when the agreement was made.
They failed to disclose their minority in the promissory note they signed.

Issue
- WON the minor’s silence as to their minority makes the contract voidable. NO
- WON restitution should be made to the extent that the petitioners might have profited. YES

Ratio
- The minors had no juridical duty to disclose their inability. Their silence does not constitute a
fraud. They were only guilty of passive misrepresentation.
- In Mercado v. Espiritu, the minor was guilty of active misrepresentation.
- Art. 1399 requires the incapacitated persons to make a restitution to the extent of their benefit
from the loan they received.