Uy Soo Lim vs. Tan Unchuan

No. 12605. September 7, 1918


Santiago Pastrano, a Chinese national, is married to Candida Vivares, wherein they have 2  daughters – Francisca and Concepcion. At the time of this marriage, Santiago possessed very  little property and the large estate left by him at his death was acquired by him during his  marriage with Candida Vivares. When Santiago returned to China, he had an illicit relationship  with Chan Quieng. He returned to the Philippines and never saw Chan Quieg again, but  received letters from her informing him that she had borne him a son, Uy Soo Lim, the present  plaintiff. Santiago died without even seeing his son and with the belief that he is his  only son, he dictated the provisions of his will disposing a greater part of his properties to  his son. A couple of suits were filed questioning the distribution of the estate. Francisca and  Concepcion filed that Uy Soo Lim should not be entitled under law to the amount assigned  to him for the reason that the marriage of Chan Quieg with Santiago was null and void and  that Uy Soo Lim was not a son of Santiago, either legitimate or illegitimate 

An agreement was reached through the judgment of three respectable Chinese merchant that  for the amount of P82,500, Uy Soo Lim shall relinquish all his right, title, and interest in the estate of Santiago in favor of Francisca. This was accepted. 

Uy Soo Lim, when he was of age, commenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of  Cebu, to rescind and annul the contract by which he had sold and transferred his interest in the  estate to Francisca Pastrano. He alleged that he was induced to execute the deed of cession by  conspiring together to exercise undue influence, by taking advantage of his youth, passions,  and inexperience, by misrepresenting material facts concerning the value of the property and  interests in questions, and by concealing others. 


Whether or not the contract entered into by Uy Soo Lim, shall be declared null and void in the  ground of minority 


No. The right of a minor to rescind, upon attaining his majority, a contract entered into during  his minority is subject to the conditions (1) that the election to rescind must be made within a  reasonable time after majority and (2) that all of the consideration which was in the minor’s  possession upon his reaching majority must be returned. The disposal of any part of the  consideration after the attainment of majority imports an affirmance of the contract.

Positive statutory law, no less than uniform court decisions, require, as a condition precedent to  rescission of a contract on account of minority, that the consideration received be refunded. Plaintiff has disposed of the whole of the P85,000 which was paid him in consideration of the  execution of the contract he is now seeking to annul. The record establishes beyond  peradventure of doubt that he is utterly without funds to reimburse this consideration. 


For the reasons stated we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court is without error,  and it is, therefore, affirmed, with the costs of both instances. So ordered.