LAW ON SALES | RUBIAS VS. BATILLER, 51 SCRA 120



Rubias vs. Batiller, 51 SCRA 120, G.R. No. L-35702 May 29, 1973

TOPIC/DOCTRINE: Lawyers are prohibited by law to acquire by purchase, even at a public auction, either in person of through the mediation of another, the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation where they may take part on by virtue of their profession.

FACTS: Prior to the war with Japan, Francisco Militante filed an application for the registration of the title of a lot before the CFI of Iloilo, the case record was lost before it was heard due to the war. Militante filed for a reconstitution of the case. The CFI reconstituted it, yet dismissed the application for registration.  

Militante, appealed before the CA. Pending the disposal of the appeal, Militante sold the lot to Domingo Rubias (his son-in-law and counsel) through a Contract of Sale. In 1958, the CA dismissed Militante’s appeal.

Rubias filed a case to recover ownership before the CFI, and assailed that the lot was illegally occupied by Isaias Batiller. BUT Batiller argued that he had been in actual, open and continuous possession of the lot since time immemorial.  The CFI ruled in favor of Batiller, since he had the better right to possess the lot, for having been in the actual possession of it under a claim of title many years before Militante.

In 1960, Rubias filed a case for forcible entry and detainer against Batiller before the Justice of the Peace Court (Now MTC). The MTC ruled in favor of Batiller, the appeal was dismissed. The case was raised to the CA, also dismissed.


ISSUE:  WON the contract of sale between Militante and Rubias was valid. (NO)


RULING: The sale was not valid. The dismissal of the case was proper since Rubias had no cause of action. The application for registration of the lot filed by Militante was dismissed by the lower courts. Hence, there was no title or right to the land that could be transmitted by the purported sale to Rubias.

And assuming that Militante had anything to sell, the deed of sale executed in 1956 by him in favor of Rubias, who was also at that time, his counsel of record in the land registration case involving the subject lot was declared inexistent and void by the lower court, as decreed by Art. 1409 and Art. 1491 of the Civil Code.

According to Art. 1409 of the Civil Code, contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning if they are expressly prohibited by law. Art. 1491 of the same code provides that, there is a prohibition to lawyers, to acquire by purchase, even at a public auction, either in person of through the mediation of another, the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation where they may take part on by virtue of their profession.  Petition is dismissed.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147