Bambalan signed a document executing a transfer of land of ownership to Maramba. After some time, Bambalan then asserted that the transfer was invalid for the following reasons: (1) Bambalan was a minor; (2) Record shows that it was not his intention to sell the land. Maramba argues that the doctrine in Mercado vs. Espiritu should apply. In that case, the plaintiff pretended to be of age and the contract was validated.
Will the minor Bambalan’s act validate the sale of land?
No, the transfer of ownership is invalid because of the minority of Bambalan. First, the ruling in Mercado vs. Espiritu is premised on the fact that the (a) minor pretended to be an adult; and (b) the contracting party did not know that they are dealing with a minor. Here, Maramba knew that Bambalan was a minor, and Bambalan did not pretend. Moreover, even if the contract was valid, the transaction is still invalid because it did not adhere to the provisions of section 50 of the Act. No. 496, wherein the register of deeds must give validity to the contracts.