death.

As guardian, Basilio continued to administer the properties of the

14. Uy Soo Lim v. Benito Tan Unchuan children without incident of note.
G.R. No. 12605 | September 07, 1918 | Ratification 10.  When the children reached the age of majority, Basilio was ordered by the
Clara Reyes court to present a plan of distribution of the estate in accordance with the
dispositions of the will of Santiago.
DOCTRINE: Uy Soo Lim tacitly ratified the otherwise voidable contract 11.  Basilio did not comply with this order at once, and before the plan of
by disposing of the greater part of the proceeds after he became of age and distribution called for was presented, objections against carrying into
after he had full knowledge of the facts upon which he now seeks to effect the provisions of the will were presented to the court.
disaffirm. 12.  Candida presented a motion in the matter of the testamentary estate in
which she claimed the right as the widow to one-half of all the estate, and
FACTS: asked that the administration be reopened and the rights readjudged and
determined.
1. At 13 years old, Chinaman Santiago Pastrano came to the 13.  The two daughters filed through their attorneys, a motion in the
Philippines. In 1882, he married Candida Vivares. They had two guardianship of Uy Soo Lim, in which they opposed the distribution of the
daughters, Francisca and Concepcion. Francisca is a defendant in this estate alleging that Uy Soo Lim was not entitled under the law to the
suit and is the wife of the codefendant, Benito Unchuan. amount of the estate because the marriage of Santiago and Chan Quieg
2. During the marriage, Santiago Pastrano possessed very little was null and void, and that Uy Soo Lim was not the son of Santiago.
property – a tienda worth about 2,000 pesos. The large estate left by 14.  The daughters asked for a suspension of the distribution and a reopening of
him at his death was acquired by him during his marriage with the matter of the estate and that the rights of all persons in interest be
Candida. readjudged.
3. Pastrano returned to China where he remained for less than a year where he 15.  Subsequently, Chan Quieg demanded that she be declared to one-half of
entered into illicit relations with Chan Quieg. the estate on account of having carnal relations with Santiago, living
4. Santiago then returned to the Philippines where he remained til his death. martially with him under the customs of China, constitutes all forms of
He never saw Chan Quieg again but received letters from her informing him valid marriage in China.
that she had borne him a son, Uy Soo Lim, the present plaintiff. 16.  Uy Soo Lim married in China, and was aware that he was heir to a large
5. Santiago never saw Uy Soo Lim, but under the belief that he was his only fortune under Santiago’s will, having already drawn from the estate for his
son, he dictated the provisions of his will to him. personal use 26,000.
6. Santiago then died, leaving a large estate. The persons who survived him 17.  Even before Candida, the daughters, and Chan Quieg had formally
and laid claim to an interest in the estate, were his wife Candida, his impeached his right in the property, Uy Soo Lim was aware of the
daughters, Chan Quieg, and Uy Soo Lim. preparations being made to reduce his interest. It was for the express
7. According to his will, Santiago attempted to dispose of the greater part of purpose of frustrating these efforts that Uy Soo Lim left China and arrived
his estate in favor of Uy Soo Lim. The will was duly probated, and Benito in Manila, two months before the first formal protest was filed.
Unchuan, husband of Francisca, was named in the will as executor. 18.  Some Chinese merchants were designated to judge the dispute. The
8. Benito, as executor of the testamentary estate of Santiago, was required to arbitrators came to the conclusion that the sum of P82,500 should be
deliver to Basilio Uy Bundan, guardian of Santiago’s two daughters and Uy accepted by Uy Soo Lim in full satisfaction and relinquishment of all his
Soo Lim, the property to which they were entitled under the will. This order right, title, and interest in the estate of Santiago.
was complied with and the administration of the estate was declared closed. 19.  This recommendation was accepted by Uy Soo Lim. Uy Soo Lim then
9. Basilio Uy Bundan, brother of Santiago, was named as guardian of the executed a deed by which he relinquished and sold to Francisca all his
daughters and Uy Soo Lim, who were minors at the time of Santiago’s rights and inerestes in the estate for P82,500. Chan Quieg executed a deed
 whereby she sold and relinquished to Francisca all her rights, title and already withdrawn from the 32,000 deposited with the court the sum of
interest in the estate of Santiago. 9,517 of which amount the sum of 7,550 was withdrawn after he reached
20.  Chang Quieg executed a public document in which she gave her consent to his majority.
the sale by Uy Soo Lim of his right and interest in the estate “in case the
same should be necessary by virtue of any legal requirements of the laws ISSUE:
of the Philippine Islands.”
21.  The lower court issued an order in the matter of the guardianship of Uy W/N the contract is voidable upon the ground that his consent was obtained
Soo Lim by which Francisca was declared the sole owner of the property by fraud or undue influence – NO, the contract is not voidable because there
left by Santiago and the guardian Basilio Bundan was ordered to deliver was ratification on the part of Uy Soo Lim. On the assumption that Uy Soo
the same to Francisca. Lim might have had a right to rescind this contract on the ground of
22.  Uy Soo Lim commenced the present action for the purpose of vacating the minority, his action fails because:
orders of the lower court and to rescind and annul the contract by which he
had sold and transferred to Francisca his interest in the estate of Santiago. a.  With full knowledge of his rights, he failed to disaffirm his contract within
23.  According to Uy Soo Lim, Benito Tan and Basilio Bundan induced him to a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority;
execute the deed of cession by conspiring together to exercise under
influence upon the plaintiff, by taking advantage of his youth, passions, b. He not only failed to tender or offer to produce the consideration, and when
and inexperience, by misrepresenting material facts concerning the value he filed his action, but proceeded, after such events, to demand and dispose
of the property in question. of such consideration when according to his own statement, he had no other
24.  The lower court held that Uy Soo Lim had not been induced by deceit to funds with which to make reimbursement.
enter into the contract, but did so deliberately with full knowledge of the
facts and upon the advice of capable counsel. RULING:
25.  Uy Soo Lim also signed the document when he was in possession of all the
essential facts bearing pon his interest. Uy Soo Lim also has the burden of The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
proving the fraud, but that he also signed the deed of cession in question
without reling upon the statements and representations of the defendants as RATIO:
the motive for signing the same.
26.  Uy Soo Lim was also adviced by his own agent, Choa Tek Hoo and upon 1. It is expressly stated in the contract which Uy Soo Lim now seeks to
advise of his two lawyers, who explained to him fully the nature and repudiate that notwithstanding the statement to the contrary in Santiago’s
contents and effects of the instrument. will, the latter was in fact the sole owner of the business referred to in that
27.  Uy Soo Lim reached his majority under Philippine laws, being then 21 document. Uy Soo Lim therefore had full information regarding the assets
years old on Oct 8 1913. On Oct 10, 1013, Chas E. Tenney, his guardian which composed Santiago’s estate, and surrounded as he was by skillful
ad litem, filed a motion with the court reciting the fact of Uy Soo Lim’s advisers, the Court has no doubt that Uy Soo Lim was aware of the value of
majority, stating that the services of a guardian ad litem were no longer those assets.
necessary.
28.  The sum of 2,687 was deposited by Choa Tek Hee was part of the proceeds 2. The trial court found that Uy Soo Lim was a minor at the time of the
accruing to Uy Soo Lim under his bill of sale to Francisca, as was also the execution of the contract, but that he not only failed to repudiate it promptly
30,000 deposited by Tan Unchuan in payment of promissory notes which upon reaching his majority, but he tacitly ratified it by disposing of the
notes accrued subsequent to the filing of suit against Choa Tek Hee. greater part of the proceeds after he became of age and after he had full
29.  Uy Soo Lim secured judgment against Choa Tek Hee in the sum of 31,511 knowledge of the facts upon which he now seeks to disaffirm.
with interest. Before filing the suit to annul his contract, Uy Soo Lim had
3. Uy Soo Lim, upon his arrival in Manila, sent a cable to Tan Unchuan: I represented by the Choa Tek Hee judgment. Uy Soo Lim proceeded to
revoke power to Teck Hee. Don’t pay him anymore money. Please forward secure, spend and otherwise dispose of the last cent of such consideration.
account payments to him. 9. By the time the present action came to trial, the whole of the 64,377 – the
then available balance on hand derived from Uy Soo Lim’s bill of ssale –
4. The cable was sent to forestall further payment to Choa Tek Hee, had been collected and converted by hims save and except the sum of 7,200
evidences a clear and convincing knowledge by Uy Soo Lim both of the still due upon the judgment against Choa Tek Hee.
conditions of the bill of sale and his rights thereunder. 10. It is important to note that this final 7,200 was disposed of by Uy Soo
Lim on April 13, 1916, or more than two and a half years after he reached
5. Knowing his legal rights, therefore Uy Soo Lim should have been prompt his majority, and an equal time after he knew all the facts now alleged by
to disaffirm his contract upon reaching majority. This was not done. him to constitute fraud.
Instead, he deliberately permitted the defendants to continue making 11. In the case at bar, Uy Soo Lim not only showed a personal knowledge
payments thereunder, and when the last cent was collected, he sought to of his rights under this contract prior to and at the time of reaching majority,
avail himself of this ground of rescission. This was almost eight months but he was surrounded by able advisers, legal and otherwise, retained to
after he attained the age of majority. protect his interests.
12. As a result of his failure to disaffirm promptly on reaching majority, he
6. The privilege granted minors of disaffirming their contract upon reaching received a balance of 30,000 upon the contract, which amount certainly
majority is subject to prompt election in the matter. would not have been paid if it had been known that he was about to attempt
to repudiate his agreement. This amount was not only collected by Uy Soo
- The rule holding certain contracts of an infant voidable and giving him the Lim after reaching majority, but was effectually disposed of as rapidly as
right to affirm or disaffirm after he arrives majority, is for the protection of possible.
minors, and so that they shall not be prejudiced by acts done or obligations 13. No less than uniform court decisions require, as a condition precedent to
incurred at a time when they are not capable of determining what is for their rescission of a contract on account of minority that the consideration
interest to do. received be refunded.
14. Not only should Uy Soo Lim have refunded all moneys in his
- For this, the law gives them an opportunity, after they have become possession upon filing his action to rescind, but, by insisting upon receiving
capable of judging for themselves, to deermine whether such acts or and spending such consideration after reaching majority, knowing the rights
obligations are beneficial or prejudicial to them. If the right to affirm or conferred upon him by law, he must be held to have forfeited any right to
disaffirm extends beyond an adequate opportunity to so determine and to bring such action.
act on the result, it ceases to be a measure of protection, and becomes a
dangerous weapon of offense, instead of a defense.

7. Uy Soo Lim not only failed to tender or offer to produce and pay the
consideration when he reached majority, and when he filed his action, but
proceeded, after such events, to demand, collect and dispos of such
consideration when according to his own statement, he had no other funds
with which to make reimbursement.
8. In filing his suit to annul the contract, no offer was made by him to return
to Francisca the consideration of such contrat, or to hold, subject to her
disposition, the balance of 54,863 then on deposit with the court and