[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Lawyer's Void Property Purchase Case

- Plaintiff Domingo Rubias sued defendant Isaias Batiller to recover ownership and possession of land that Rubias purchased from his father-in-law Francisco Militante. - Batiller claimed he had always possessed the land since time immemorial. He also argued the sale between Rubias and Militante was void because Rubias was Militante's lawyer in a prior land registration case involving the same property. - The court held that the sale was void under the Civil Code because it prohibits a lawyer from purchasing property involved in a case where they represent the client. This type of prohibited contract is considered inexistent and cannot be ratified due to public policy concerns.

Uploaded by

marwantahsin
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Lawyer's Void Property Purchase Case

- Plaintiff Domingo Rubias sued defendant Isaias Batiller to recover ownership and possession of land that Rubias purchased from his father-in-law Francisco Militante. - Batiller claimed he had always possessed the land since time immemorial. He also argued the sale between Rubias and Militante was void because Rubias was Militante's lawyer in a prior land registration case involving the same property. - The court held that the sale was void under the Civil Code because it prohibits a lawyer from purchasing property involved in a case where they represent the client. This type of prohibited contract is considered inexistent and cannot be ratified due to public policy concerns.

Uploaded by

marwantahsin
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No. L-35702 May 29, 1973 DOMINGO D. RUBIAS, vs. ISAIAS BATILLER FACTS: Plaintiff Domingo D.

Rubias, a lawyer, filed a forcible Entry and unlawful Detainer, a suit to recover the ownership and possession of certain portions of lot located in Iloilo which he bought from his father-in-law, Francisco Militante against its present occupant defendant, Isaias Batiller, who illegally entered said portions of the lot. In his answer defendant claims that it does not state a cause of action, the truth of the matter being that he and his predecessors-in-interest have always been in actual, open and continuous possession since time immemorial under claim of ownership of the portions of the lot in question. It is contended that the contract of sale between the plaintiff and his father-in-law, Francisco Militante, Sr., of the property was void, because it was made when plaintiff was the counsel of the latter in the Land Registration case invoking Articles 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code. ISSUE: Whether or not the contract of sale between plaintiff and his father-in-law over the property was void because it was made when plaintiff was counsel of his father-in-law in a land registration case involving the property in dispute? HELD: The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is categorically prohibited by Article 1491, paragraph (5) of the Civil Code, and that consequently, plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation from his client was void and could produce no legal effect, by virtue of Article 1409, paragraph (7) of our Civil Code which provides that contracts "expressly prohibited or declared void by law are inexistent and that these contracts cannot be ratified. Article 1491 of our Civil Code prohibits certain persons, by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property, from acquiring such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial auction," as follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3) administrators; (4) public officers and employees; judicial officers and employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and (6) others especially disqualified by law. The rationale for that fundamental consideration of public policy render void and inexistent such expressly prohibited purchase Article 1409 of the Civil Code, declared such prohibited contracts as "inexistent and void from the beginning." Indeed, the nullity of such prohibited contracts is definite and permanent and cannot be cured by ratification. The public interest and public policy remain paramount and do not permit of compromise or ratification.

You might also like