Spouses A and B owned an apartment in Manila. They died in 2019, leaving said property to their only son Rudy, who was then 16 year old. In January 2020, to have extra funds for his schooling at FEU, Rudy leased the said apartment to Leny.

The truth is, Rudy was only 17 years old when he signed the contract of lease with Leny, and he did not disclose this fact to her up to now, who thinks he was 20 years old. Rudy then received the rentals from January until April, but now wanted to terminate the contract this May.

Can Rudy terminate his contract of lease with Leny? Can he raise his minority as a ground? Why or why not? City the applicable provision and explain.

  

In Phillipines laws, Article 1327 (1), New Civil Code of the Philippines says that the minor is not competent to be the party to the contract, thus the contract with minors is void-ab-intitio and it cannot be enforceably by law. In the given situation, we can see that Rudy is a minor and formed with a contract with Leny. However, there was no valid contract between Leny and Rudy because Rudy was a minor. Therefore, Yes, rudy can disaffirm the contract of lease with Leny because a minor has the right to decide to void a contract before reaching the age of maturity and he has not attained the majority.

The minor has a right to make this decision any time and even if the contract has been fully performed. Therefore, Rudy has a right to void a contract because he did not attain the majority yet, he has the right to void a contract any time during the contract. Hence, Yes, he can raise his minority as a ground because the court will say that the minor cannot give consent for the contract of lease, therefore, the contract of lease with Rudy shall not be enforceable by law. 

However, there is one exception where a minor cannot disaffirm a contract for something necessary for life and the contract with a minor for necessary items cannot be void. That means the court will consider this if there is a contract with a minor for necessary. In the given situation, we can see that Rudy entered into the contract for the necessity to pay fund for his schooling, the court have to consider this, and make the contract of lease valid.