Rubias v.

Batiller
May 29, 1973 GR No. L-35702 Teehankee
Parties to a Contract of Sale Jessica Chua
Petitioners: Respondents:
DOMINGO D. RUBIAS ISAIAS BATILLER
Doctrine:
Article 1491 of our Civil Code prohibits in its six paragraphs 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.
Facts:
1. Before the war with Japan, Francisco Militante filed with the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo an application for the registration of title of land he claimed ownership of located
in the province of Iloilo. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands, Director
of Forestry, and other oppositors.
2. However, during the war with Japan, the record of the case was lost before it was
heard, so after the war Militante petitioned this Court to reconstitute the record of the
case. The Court of First Instance heard the land registration case on November 11,
1952, and after trial this Court dismissed the application for registration. Militante
appealed the decision to the CA.
3. On June 18, 1956, pending the resolution of the appeal, Militante sold the land to his
son-in-law, Domingo Rubias. The sale was duly recorded in the Office of the Register of
Deeds for the Province of Iloilo.
4. On September 22, 1958, the CA affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance,
dismissing the application of Registration of Militante.
5. On April 22, 1960, plaintiff Rubias – a lawyer – filed a suit to recover the ownership and
possession of the property which he bought from his father-in-law, Militante in 1956
against its present occupant defendant, Isaias Batiller, who illegally entered said
portions of the lot on two occasions — in 1945 and in 1959. Plaintiff prayed also for
damages and attorneys fees.
6. The Municipal Court of Barotac Viejo after trial, decided the case on May 10, 1961 in
favor Batiller. The appellate court affirmed the decision and ruled in favor of Batiller.
7. On August 17, 1965, defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.
Batiller alleges that Rubias does not have a cause of action because the property in
dispute was the subject matter of a case filed in court wherein Rubias acted as counsel
on record of his father-in-law. As such, Rubias could not have acquired interest in the
property as the contract of sale between Militante and Rubias is inexistent and void.
Issue/s: Ruling:
WON the contract of sale between Militante Atty. Rubias is valid? NO

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

1. Militante had no right to sell the subject property.

Plaintiff's claim of ownership to the land in question was predicated on the sale
thereof for P2,000.00 made in 1956 by his father-in-law, Francisco Militante, in his
favor, at a time when Militante's application for registration thereof had already been
dismissed by the Iloilo land registration court and was pending appeal in the Court of
Appeals.

With the Court of Appeals' 1958 final judgment affirming the dismissal of Militante's
application for registration, the lack of any rightful claim or title of Militante to the land
was conclusively and decisively judicially determined. Hence, there was no right or title
to the land that could be transferred or sold by Militante's purported sale in 1956 in
favor of plaintiff.

2. The law prohibits purchase of subject property by counsel.

No error could be attributed either to the lower court's holding that the purchase by a
lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is categorically prohibited by Article
1491, paragraph (5) of the Philippine 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.

'Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
xxx xxx xxx
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.

'ART. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire any purchase, even at a public
or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts,
and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice,
the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the
court within whose jurisdiction or territory their exercise their respective
functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall
apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the
object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.
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. In this aspect, the permanent disqualification
of public and judicial officers and lawyers grounded on public policy differs from the
first three cases of guardians, agents and administrators

The causes of nullity which have ceased to exist cannot impair the validity of the new
contract.