4/15/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 14. Appellants [referring to petitioners] later found out, after appellee Ma. Therese Roselle Uy-Cua filed a Motion to Dismiss and after the other appellees filed their Answer, that the named vendee, Ma. Therese Roselle Uy-Cua, is the minor daughter of Ruperta E. Cua, Jr. At the time of the sale, Ma. Therese Roselle Uy-Cua was a minor, being only 14 years old, and even to this day, Ma. Therese Roselle Uy-Cua is still a minor.[67] Assuming that this allegation was true, petitioners are not the proper parties to raise it. Article 1397 of the Civil Code provides that "persons who are capable cannot allege the incapacity of those with whom they contracted[.]"[68] Even if they were, they still filed the wrong action. The contracting party's incapacity is a ground for annulment of contract, not rescission. Article 1390 of the Civil Code states: ARTICLE 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification. Petitioners pray for the rescission of the contract, but the ground they raised is one for annulment of contract. Article 1397 of the Civil Code specifies who may institute such action: ARTICLE 1397. The action for the annulment of contracts may be instituted by all who are thereby obliged principally or subsidiarily. However, persons who are capable cannot allege the incapacity of those with whom they contracted; nor can those who exerted intimidation, violence, or undue int1uence, or employed fraud, or caused mistake base their action upon these flaws of the contract. Thus, even if this Court were to consider petitioners' action as one for annulment of contract, they are still not the proper parties to file such action. They are not parties to the Deed of Absolute Sale, and neither are they obliged principally or subsidiarity with regard to the Deed of Absolute Sale. Thus, the trial court's dismissal of their Complaint would still be proper. III Finally, the Court of Appeals also correctly affirmed the trial court's ruling that petitioners failed to comply with a condition precedent. Section 412 of Republic Act No. 7160 provides: SECTION 412. Conciliation. — (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. — No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66171 10/14