LAW ON SALES | RAMOS V. NGASEO, 445 SCRA 529, DECEMBER 9, 2004
RAMOS
V. NGASEO
445
SCRA 529, DECEMBER 9, 2004
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Mere
demand for delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of
ownership, hence, not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of
Article 1491.
FACTS
This
is a complaint for suspension of respondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Article 1491 of the
Civil Code by demanding from his client, complainant Federico N. Ramos, the
delivery of 1,000 square meters of land, a litigated property, as payment for
his appearance fees.
ISSUE
Whether
respondent violated the prohibition against lawyers under Article 1491 (5) of
the Civil Code.
RULING
No.
The
court held that Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code prohibiting lawyers from
acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved
which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of
their profession applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes
place during the pendency of the litigation involving the client’s property.
Here, the court hold that there was no actual acquisition of the property in litigation since the respondent only made a written demand for its delivery which the complainant refused to comply. Mere demand for delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of ownership, hence, not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of Article 1491. Even assuming arguendo that such demand for delivery is unethical, respondent’s act does not fall within the purview of Article 1491. The letter of demand dated January 29, 2003 was made long after the judgment in Civil Case No. SCC-2128 became final and executory on January 18, 2002.https://www.instagram.com/lawyalstudent/