Felix Ullman vs. Vicente Hernaez

FELIX ULLMAN, plaintiff-appellee  

VICENTE HERNAEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Vicente Hernaez contracted a debt in favor of Felix Ullman on April 5, 1900, amounting to 3,525 pesos Mexican currency, to be paid says Hernaez, “as soon as I receive the portion that as an heir must come to me from the estate of Juana Espinosa, widow of Hernaez: without prejudice to paying on it, during the time that may elapse until I get possession of said property, interest at six per cent a year, but not, however, compound interest.”

On June 2, 1913, Ullman filed suit against Vicente Hernaez, alleging therrein, as the fifth fact:

‘That the defendant did on January 5, 1913, cede, alienate, and convey to Rosendo Hernaez for the sum of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000) Philippine currency, all his rights and rights of action in the property left by the deceased Juana Espinosa.

This fact was expressly admitted by the defendant in the agreement of facts. Moreover, the instrument of indebtedness was inserted in the complaint and has not been denied under oath in the reply.

ISSUES

Can the right of action for nullity of the defendant prosper?

HELD

No. True it is that the defendant lacked three months and fifteen days when he executed the note for the sum stated, the price of some jewelry he had bought from the plaintiff; but the attained his majority on July 20 of the same year 1900, and he did not then nor in the four years following attempt to enforce the nullity that he now assigns as a ground of error.

The right of action for nullity shall only last four years . . . When it refers to contracts executed by minors or incompetents, from the date when they were released from guardianship. (Civil Code, art. 1301.)