1.

NABUS v PACSON
FACTS
- Petitioner spouses Nabus owned a parcel of land
- Located in La Trinidad, Benguet
- Area: 1665 sqm
- Spouses Nabus mortgaged the property to PNB
- Nabus, in exchange, secured a loan from PNB amounting to 30,000
- 2/19/77 - Spouses Nabus executed a deed of conditional sale selling 1000 sqm of the land to Pacson
for 170,000
- Payment method:
- First, vendee Pacson will pay 13,000 directly to PNB La Trinidad on or before February
21, 1977
- Second, after paying the 13,000, vendee Pacson will pay the 17,500 balance of the
mortgage not less than 3000 per month beginning March 1977
- After the first two have been paid, Pacson shall pay 2,000 monthly to to vendor until the
full 170,000 has been paid
- After full payment, vendor Nabus shall execute the transfer documents
- There are claims over the land pending in court. If the vendor Nabus loses such claims, then
they shall return to Pacson what has been paid (Since Nabus will no longer own the property
and can no longer sell it)
- At the time of the sale
- Tacloy had a basket making shop on the property
- Spouses Flores had a store on the property
- Tacloy and Flores vacated the property
- Respondent vendees Pacson took possession of the property
- They constructed an 80x32 feet building and steel fence around the property
- Vendee Pacson paid 12,038 then 20,744 to PNB, paying off the loan of vendor Nabus
- Respondents payments to vendors (directly) were not the 2,000 per month agreed upon
- It went as high as 15.5k and as low as 10 pesos per month for 7 years
- Total payments amounted to 112,455, leaving a balance of 57k
- 1/1984 - Vendor Nabus approached vendee pacson to ask for full payment of the lot, but since Julie
was a widow with a minor daughter, she was required to return with other documents
- Julie did not return
- After a week, vendee Catalina Pacson heard a rumor that the lot was already sold to Betty tolero
- Pacson went to the register of deeds and found out that Nabus executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale in favor of Tolero on march 5, 1984 over the whole 1665 sqm
- 3/22/1984 - the gate to the repair shop by the Pacsons was padlocked
- 3/28/2008 - vendee Pacson filed a complaint with RTC
- Seeking the annulment of the sale to Tolero
- Nabus answer:
- Joaquin pacson did not proceed with the conditional sale when he (Joaquin) found out that there
was a pending case over the whole property. Rather, Joaquin preferred to lease it instead
- Joaquin did not sign the second copy of the deed of conditional sale
- Hence, the contract was converted into a lease, hence, she could freely sell the property
- Betty Tolero
- Claims that she is a buyer in good faith
- She paid the full agreed price of 200k, Deed of absolute sale was executed and registered
- Hence, she padlocked the gate
 - Trial court decision - in favor of respondent vendee Pacson
- Deed of conditional sale was not converted into a lease because all pages were signed
- Presumption of regularity
- Failure to sign second page was mere inadvertence
- Tolero not a buyer in good faith since she knew about the DOCS
- General rule - once Pacsons were ready to pay for the balance, Nabus spouses had the
obligation to execute transfer documents
- In reciprocal obligations, the injured party has the choice between specific performance
and rescission. ITC, Pacsons chose specific performance
- Ordered Tolero to execute a DOAS in favor of the Pacsons upon their payment of the 57k
balance
- Nabus’ and Tolero shall pay Pacson damages
- Hence, Nabus and Tolero file this petition
- Nabus:
- The DOCS was converted into a lease, Joaquin did not sign the second page of the
contract
- The contract was a contract to sell not a contract of sale. Hence, until full payment of the
balance, they did not have the obligation to execute transfer documents
- ITC:
- The vendees did not pay the 57k balance
- They did not follow the agreed 2,000 payment per month
- They did not give the necessary documents for transfer

ISSUE
I. W/N the DOCS was converted into a contract of lease - NO
II. W/N the DOCS was a contract of sale or contract to sell - CONTRACT TO SELL

HELD
I. The DOCS was not converted into a contract of lease
- The 364 receipts issued by vendor nabus to vendee pacson included the phrases “as partial
payment” or “cash vale” indicating that it was a sale and not a lease (not rent)
- Joaquin pacson’s non signing of the second page was sheer inadvertence since the original
contract and all other copies were signed by joaquin
II. The contract was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale
- Article 1458 - definition of contract of sale
- Contract of sale may be absolute or conditional
- Absolute contract of sale
- Title passes to vendee upon delivery
- No stipulation that the property remains with the seller until full payment
- Conditional contract of sale
- Ownership remains with the vendor until full payment is effected
- Full payment of the purchase price is a suspensive condition; non fulfillment of
the condition prevents the obligation to sell from arising
- Elements of a contract of sale
- Consent to transfer ownership in exchange for price
- Determinate subject matter
- Price certain
 - Contract to sell may not be considered a contract of sale because contract to sell lacks the first
element - consent to transfer ownership in exchange for price
- In contract to sell the seller reserves the title. This means that the seller does not yet
agree to transfer ownership
- It cannot even be considered as a contract of conditional sale because in COCS, upon
fulfillment of the condition, the title automatically transfers to the vendee. In CTS, it does
not
- Hence, the definition of the contract to sell
- A bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the
ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds
himself to sell the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of
the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price.
- The terms and stipulations of the contract are controlling over the title
- ITC, the DOCS is actually a CTS
- The stipulations in the contracts state that transfer documents will be executed
upon full payment. This shows that the vendor reserved the title of the property
until full payment
- Pacson failed to perform suspensive condition which would give rise to the obligation of Nabus
to transfer the title
- They did not pay the balance
- Hence, there is no action for rescission or specific performance, because there is no contract in
the first place
- Remedy of spouses Pacson
- Reimbursement for their payments and nominal damages
- Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him.

2. COOK v MCMICKING
FACTS
- The complaint alleges that:
- Nellie cook is the wife of edward cook
- Nellie cook is the absolute owner of a piece of land in Paco Manila
- 913 sqm area
- Timeline
- Torrens title obtained in June 1904 in the name of edward
- Later that year, edward transferred the land to his wife nellie
- 1911 - Edward became indebted to Johnson for 10k
- June 15, 1912 - judgment was entered against edward cook by CFI Rizal for 10,000
- By virtue of the
- judgment, the Nellie cook’s Paco property was levied
- Was to be sold on August 8 at 9am
- Plaintiff Nellie cook prays for an injunction permanently prohibiting defendants McMicking (Sherriff of
manila) et. al. from selling the land
- 8/8/12 - CFI Manila granted injunction restraining the sale of the property
 - Defendant-appellants claims
- The transfer of the land from edward to nellie was void under 1458 of the civil code
- Hence, the land is still property of edward and may be levied

ISSUE
I. W/N the appellants may challenge the validity of the transfer - NO

HELD
I. Appellants are not in a position to challenge the validity of the transfer.
- General rule - parties who have absolutely no relation to the parties to the transfer at the time it
occurred and had no rights or interest inchoate, present, remote, or otherwise, in the property
in question at the time the transfer occurred.
- Certain transfers between husband and wife are prohibited
- But this can only be attacked by persons who:
- Bear relation to the parties (husband and wife)
- Bear relation to the property in a sense that such transfer would interfere with
their rights and interests

3. CHING v GOYANKO
FACTS
- 1947 - Joseph Goyakno and Epifania Dela Cruz got married
- 1961 (during their marriage) - Joseph and Epifania acquired a 661 sqm property in Cebu
- Because Joseph and Epifania are Chinese citizens, the property was registered in the name of their
aunti Sulpicia Ventura
- 5/1/93 - Sulpicia executed a deed of sale over the property in favor of Joseph
- 10/12/93 - Joseph executed a deed of sale in favor of his common law wife Maria B. Ching
- 3/11/96 - Joseph Goyanko died
- Respondents (Joseph Goyanko’s children with Epifaina Dela Cruz) discovered that the property is
under the name of Ching
- Respondents had the signature of their father in the second deed of sale examined
- Found to be forged
- Respondents (Goyanko children) filed with RTC Cebu
- Complaint to recover the property
- Nullification of the deed of sale
- Petition Ching defense:
- She was the one who paid the purchase price (when it was first conveyed to Goyanko from
Sulpicia
- Presented witness in the notary public testifying that Goyanko signed the document
- RTC decision - in favor of respondents Goyanko children. DOS null and void
- Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be conjugal
- No proof of a judicial decree dissolving the marriage between Joseph and Epifania
- Even if property is not conjugal, sale is still not valid for being contrary to morals and public
policy
- Sale made to the concubine, undermining the family
- Hence, petition by Ching

ISSUE
I. W/N common law spouses may sell to one another - NO
 II. W/N the sale was contrary to morals and public policy - YES
III. W/N a trust relationship was created - NO

HELD
I. Common law spouses may not sell to one another
- GR:
- Article 1490 - Husband and wife cannot sell property to one another except when there
is a separation of property
- Calimlim case - this prohibition extends to common law marriages
- Reasons:
- It would destroy the system of conjugal partnership (that whats mine is
yours)
- To prevent the exercise of undue influence
- ITC, Goyanko and Ching are common law spouses hence null and void
II. The sale is contrary to morals and public policy
- GR
- Article 1409 - contracts whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to morals and public
policy are void from the very beginning
- ITC
- Goyanko sold the property to his concubine after he had abandoned his family and
deprived them of support
- This is subversive of the stability of the family, which is a basic social institution
III. A trust relationship was not created
- Petitioner Ching’s claims were not corroborated

4. NOBLEZA v NUEGA
FACTS
- 1988
- Shirley and Rogelio Nuega were still engaged
- Shirley was working as a domestic helper in Israel
- Rogelio (fiance) requested Shirley to send money that he will use to buy a lot in Marikina where
they will build their house
- Shirley sent money
- 1989
- Rogelio purchased a house and lot for 102,000. Area is 111 sqm
- When she arrived in the same year, she settled the balance over the property and paid the
monthly amortizations
- 10/1989 - TCT issued over the property in the name of Rogelio only
- 1990
- 9/1 - Shirley and Rogelio got married and lived in the property
- 1991
- Shirley returned to Israel for work
- 1992
- Shirley returned and found out that Rogelio had brought home another woman, Monica
Escobar, and has been introducing her as his wife
- Shirley then filed 2 cases against Rogelio:
- Concubinage
- Legal Separation and liquidation of property
 - 12/29 - Rogelio sold the property to petitioner Josefina Nobleza
-
- Price - 380,000
- Petitioner Nobleza undertook to assume the mortgage on the property
- (RTC ruling on legal separation) RTC Pasig City granted the legal separation and ordered the
dissolution of ACP
- RTC enjoined Rogelio from selling any of the community property until after liquidation
- Since Rogelio is the guilty spouse, he forfeits his share
- Rogelio appealed the RTC ruling on the legal separation to the CA - CA denied
- 1996 - Shirley filed a complaint for rescission of the sale (to Nobleza) and the recovery of the property
- (RTC decision on rescission) RTC rescinded the sale representing 55.05 sqm or ½ of the property
- Ordered Nobleza to return the 55.05 sqm or to pay its value to Shirley
- Petitioner vendee Nobleza appealed the rescission to the CA - CA denied
- Petitioner also filed MR - denied
- Hence, petition
- Petitioner claims that he is a buyer in good faith because when she examined the TCT, it was in
the name of Rogelio alone

ISSUE
I. W/N petitioner Nobleza was a buyer in good faith
II. W/N the DOAS dated 12/29/92 is void in its entirety

HELD
I. Petitioner Nobleza is not a buyer in good faith
- GR
- Innocent buyer in good faith - one who buys the property of another
- Without notice that another person has a right or interest in the property
- Full and fair price paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt
of notice of claims of other parties in the property
- Party who claims being an innocent buyer in good faith who has the burden of proving
such an assertion
- He or she must prove that he or she did everything he can do for the protection
of his interests (e.g. examining title, ocular inspection, etc)
- Must also check into the civil status of the seller to check that if married, there is
marital consent
- Party is not considered one in good faith if he merely examines title and disregards all
other surrounding circumstances
- ITC
- TCT over the property states that the sole owner and seller Rogelio is single
- Several circumstances that indicate that petitioner is not a buyer in good faith
- Petitioner Nobleza’s sister is Hilda Bautista, who lives near Rogelio and Shirley’s
house - Nobleza should have inquired if Rogelio did have the capacity to sell
- Respondent Shirley even claims that she warned Nobleza that the former
filed a case against Rogelio
- Irregularity with the Deed of Absolute sale
- DOAS dated 12/29/92. Community Tax Certificates dated 1/2/93
and 1/20/93. Made it appear that the DOAS was executed before
shirley filed her petition
 - DOAS stated Nobleza as single but did not state Rogelio’s civil status
- Why does petitioner keep stating that under the TCT Rogelio was
single but could not even put single under the DOAS?
II. The DOAS is void in its entirety
- The subject property forms part of the ACP of the spouses
- Even if only Rogelio’s name appears on the TCT, the property is jointly owned by them
- Shirley and Rogelio were married 1990. Rogelio sold the property without Shirley’s consent in
1992, during the marriage
- Under the Family Code, such disposition of a communal property is void

5. INTAC v CA
6. INTAC v CA (supra)
FACTS
- Family Tree
- Irineo Mendoza is married to Salvacion Fermin
- Irineo has two children Josefina and Martina (respondents)
- Irineo has a niece, Angelina, who was married to Mario (petitioners spouses Intac)
- Irineo owned the subject property in QC
- 10/25/77 - with the consent of Salvacion, Irineo executed a DOAS over the property in favor of
Angelina and Mario (petitioner spouses Intac)
- Despite the sale, respondents (children of Irineo) continued to have possession over the property and
paid the taxes
- 2/22/94 - Respondents children of Irineo filed a complaint with the RTC seeking the cancellation of the
TCT against spouses Intac and sought reconveyance to them. They claim:
- Spouses Intac borrowed the title of the property to be used as collateral for a loan
- Title is void for being fictitious
- Spouses Intac never informed respondents that they had the title to the property although it was
the respondents who had possession over the property
- Irineo intended for his heirs to equally divide the property
- Family meeting was held where Irineo’s nephew, Marietto, testified that Irineo intended
to divide his property among his heirs
- Spouses Intac response:
- TCT transferred to them by virtue of a valid DOAS and valuable consideration
- Respondent’s possession was mere tolerance on their part
- RTC ruling - in favor of respondents children of Irineo
- Sale is null and void for being simulated
- Irineo signed the document because he was in dire need of funds
- 60,000 price is inadequate for a 240sqm lot in QC
- Respondents continued to be in possession
- CA ruling - modified RTC but still declared the sale to be null and void
- Hence, petitioner Intac spouses files this petition
- Petitioner Intac’s position
- All elements of a valid contract of sale are present
- Respondents validly gave their consent. In fact, it was Irineo who offered to sell them the
property
- They signed the documents and never questioned it
- Respondent children of Irineo’s position
- DOAS simulated as Irineo had no intention of selling the property
 - The sale was based on Irineo’s trust that it would only be used to obtain a loan
- Spouses Intac should have informed respondents, they did not
- Respondents remained in possession
- Price of the sale inadequate
- Spouses Intac abused the trust and confidence of Irineo

ISSUE/HELD
I. W/N the DOAS was a valid document - NO. it was simulated
- Elements of a contract:
- Consent
- Object
- Cause
- Simulated contracts may be absolute or relative
- Absolute - when parties do not intend to be bound at all - void
- Relative - when parties conceal their true agreement - when not prejudicial to third
persons, binds the parties to their real agreement
- ITC
- No valid sale took place because there is no valid consideration and no intent to sell it
- Evidenced by Marietto’s testimony
- Petitioner failed to disprove marietto’s testimony
- Petitioner’s claim that they paid 150,000, but they were never able to show proof of any
payment
- Petitioner’s also failed to prove that they lent money to Irineo or that Irineo benefitted
from the loan they obtained
- Respondents continued their possession and even collected the rentals
- If Intac spouses truly owned the property, why did they not assert their right? Why
wait for Irineo’s death
- Hence, sale is void ab initio for lack of consideration
- No purchase price was paid
- Extra info:
- The intention of the parties control over the words in a contract
- Action to quiet title does not prescribe when in possession

7. DISTAJO v CA
FACTS
- Iluminada Abiertas designated her son Rufo Distajo to be the administrator of her parcels of land: Lot
Nos. 1018, 1046, 1047, 1057 located in Capiz
- Iluminada sold her lots to her children:
- 1018-A (a portion of 1018) - sold to Raul, Ricardo, Ernesto, Federico, and Eduardo Distajo
- 1046 and 1047 - sold to administrator Rufo
- 1057 - sold to Rhodora Distajo (her grandchild, daughter of Rufo)
- 1018 - sold to Rufo Distajo
- Justo Abiertas jr. is the brother of Iluminada
- Justo died, leaving behind his children (nephews and niece of iluminada) Teresita, Alicia, Josefa, and
Luis
- Teresita paid for the real estate taxes of the properties left behind by their father Justo, Lot Nos 1001,
1048, 1049 (total of 7 lots - 1001 1018 1046 1047 1048 1049 1057)
- Rufo Distajo took possession of the properties and paid the taxes
 - 1971 - Iluminada died
- Zacarias, Pilar, and Rizaldo demand possession of the seven parcels of land from Rufo Distajo and his
wife, lagrimas (respondent). Rufo refused
- Other heirs of Iluminada (petitioners) filed complaint for the recovery of possession and ownership of
the properties of Iluminada
- TC dismissed the complaint
- Parties appealed to the CA
- CA ordered the partition of lot 1018:
- 238 sqm belongs to plaintiffs and the rest to the defendants
- Petitioner Ricardo Distajo filed MR - denied
- Hence, petition
- Petitioner RIcardo arguments
- Iluminada exclusively owns the 7 parcels of land
- Rufo Distajo cannot acquire the properties because the civil code prohibits the
administrator from acquiring properties under his administration
- Rufo defrauded Iluminada and forged her signatures
- Respondent
- Rufo rightfully owns the properties by virtue of the various deeds of sale executed by
Iluminada
- Petitioner heirs of Iluminada cannot claim any right over lots 1001, 1048, and 1049
because it belonged to the brother of Iluminada, Justo, which was sold to Rufo by
Justo’s heirs

ISSUE/HELD
I. W/N Rufo can acquire properties 1018, 1046, 1047,1057 - YES
- It has been established that it is Justo who owned the other lots, this case is limited only to the
lots owned by iluminada
- GR
- "ARTICLE 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another (2)
Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them,
unless the consent of the principal has been given;
- Under paragraph (2) of the above article, the prohibition against agents purchasing
property under their management is not absolute
- It does not apply if the principal consents to the sale of the property in the hands
of the agent or administrator.
- ITC
- The deeds of sale signed by Iluminada Abiertas shows that she gave consent to the sale
of the properties in favor of her son, Rufo, who was the administrator of the properties.

8. FIESTAN v CA
FACTS
- Petitioner spouses Dionisio Fiestan and Juanita Arconada are owners of a parcel of land in Ilocos Sur
- They mortgaged their land to DBP to secure their 22,400 loan
- Petitioner failed to pay their loan
- The land was extrajudicially foreclosed by DBP in accordance with Act no. 3135 as amended by Act
No. 4118 (In essence, petitioners gave DBP the special power to foreclose and sell the property)
 - DBP acquired the land as the highest bidder in the public auction
- Petitioners failed to redeem the property within 1 year
- Hence, their TCT was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of DBP
- 4/13/82 - DBP sold the lot Francisco Peria
- Peria mortgaged the land to PNB to secure his loan of 115k
- At this point, petitioners Fiestan were still in possession of the lot, hence the sheriff ordered them to
vacate the premises
- 8/23/82 - Petitioners fiestan filed a complaint for annulment of sale and mortgage against DBP, PNB,
and Peria (for the sale to DBP, the sale to Peria, and the mortgage to PNB)
- RTC Vigan dismissed the complaint of the petitioners
- CA affirmed the RTC decision
- Hence, this petition in court
- Petitioner’s position:
- Extrajudicial foreclosure sale (for the unpaid 22.4k) must be annulled because it was
conducted by the provincial sheriff without conducting a levy on the property
- Sale violates CC articles 1409 and1491 which prohibits agents (DBP) from purchasing
the property under their administration

ISSUE/HELD
I. W/N sale to DBP valid even without levy - YES
- Three different kinds of sales under the law:
- Ordinary execution sale
- Governed by rule 39 of the ROC
- Judicial foreclosure sale
- Governed by rule 68 of the ROC
- Extrajudicial foreclosure sale
- Governed by Act No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 4118
- In an EJF sale
- The property sought to be foreclosed need not be identified or set apart
by the sheriff from the whole mass of property of the mortgagor for the
purpose of satisfying the mortgage indebtedness.
- mortgagor has authorized the mortgagee- creditor or any other person
authorized to act for him to sell said property in accordance with the
formalities required under Act No. 3135
- No need for levy
- ITC
- It was an extrajudicial foreclosure sale under Act 3135
- Sale was made by virtue of a special power attached to a real estate mortgage
- Giving power to DBP/appointing DBP for the extrajudicial foreclosure ‘as
Petitioner’s atty in fact to sell the property”
- Hence, there is not need to apply rule 39
II. W/N the sale is in violation of NCC 1491 paragraph (2)? - NO
- The provisions of 1491 does not apply in this case. Why?
- Because it was made by virtue of a special power attached to the mortgage by virtue of
Act No. 3135. 3135 allows the creditor/agent (DBP) to participate in the bidding and
purchase property
- Special law > General law (basically, 1491 is the GR, Act 3135 is the XPN. when it is
sold and purchased by the agent with special power under 3135, it is valid)
9. MACARIOLA v ASUNCION
FACTS
- Respondent Judge Elias Asuncion handled civil case 3010
- Civil case 3010
- Complaint for the partition of land owned of deceased Francisco Reyes
- Complaint filed by children of Francisco from his second marriage and his illegitimate child
- Petitioner Macariola is the daughter of Reyes from his first marriage
- 6/8/63 - Respondent judge Asuncion rendered decision
- 10/16/63 - a project of partition was submitted to judge asuncion
- The project of partition was not signed by the parties but only by their counsel
- 10/23/63 Judge asuncion approved it anyway
- One of Reyes’ properties was Lot 1184
- ½ of this lot was the exclusive property of Reyes
- This ½ will be divided into 5 portions (A,B,C,D, and E)
- Lot D was sold to the stenographer of respondent judge asuncion
- Lot E was sold to Dr. Galapon
- Galapon then sold a portion Lot E to Judge Asuncion on March 1965
- Both portions of Galapon and respondent judge Asuncion were sold to Traders manufacturing and
fishing industries Inc.
- President of Traders - resp Judge Asuncion
- Secretary of Traders - Judge Asuncion’s wife
- Macariola filed and admin complaint against Judge Asuncion (now CA Justice) for violation of Article
1491 (5) of the NCC for acquiring Lot E [(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 they 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]
- Others:
- Art 14(1)(5) of Code of commerce, Sec 3(h) RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, Sec 12 Rule 18 Civil Service Rules, Canon 25 of Code of Judicial Ethics by
associating himself with TRADERS while being a judge
- Coddling an impostor by closely fraternizing with TRADERS stockholder, Dominador
Arigpa, who publicly claim he is a lawyer despite not being in the Roll of Attorneys
- Culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics
- Justice Munoz-Palma investigated the case
- Recommended that Justice asuncion be warned for violation of NCC 1491
- 11/68 - Macariola also filed civil case 4234 assailing the project of partition, but this was dismissed
- Supreme court now acts on the administrative complaint filed by petitioner Macariola

ISSUE/HELD

I. W/N there was a violation of NCC 1491 (5) - NO

- 1491(5) only applies to sale of property subject to litigation, or during the pendency of the case
- ITC
- Sale was made to asuncion on 3/6/65 which is 2 years after the decision became final
(1963). The lot therefore is no longer the subject of litigation
 - The lot was not bought directly from the plaintiffs but from Dr. Galapon
- Civil case 4234 filed in 1968 has no bearing on Asuncion’s purchase of the property
- Because the sale was effected and consummated long after the finality of the decision in the
partition case
- Petitioner claims that the sale between the children of Reyes from second marriage to Galapon (when
lot 1184 was divided and sold) was a scheme to transfer the property to respondent judge
- SC - Nope
- Based on the investigation of justice munoz palma, no evidence shows that Dr. Galapon
was a mere middleman.
- With regard to the Project of partition not having been signed by the parties themselves
- SC - this was done in good faith with the assurance of the parties’ counsel that they were
authorized to do so
- Circumstances led investigating Justice to believe that Macariola knew about the
partition
- Finally, while Res Judge did not violate Art 1491(5) of NCC, the purchase was improper based on
Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which emphasizes that a judge should be free from the
appearance of impropriety
- It was unwise for judge to purchase property that was previously the subject of litigation in his
court

II. W/N Res Judge violated the Code of Commerce and RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Prac. Act) when
he associated himself with TRADERS – NO
- Asuncion cannot be held liable under Code of Commerce or RA 3019 because he did not act in
his official capacity as a member of the judiciary
- The business of TRADERS is not the kind where Asuncion intervenes or takes part in his
capacity as CFI Judge
- No evidence that TRADERS received undue advantage because of respondent being a
member of the judiciary
- While he is not liable under any of these acts, he is liable under Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics
- Requires the abstention from making personal investment in enterprises which are apt to be
involved in litigation in his court
- Court notes that Asuncion and his wife withdrew immediately their involvement in TRADERS 22
days after it had been incorporated, realizing the violation of Canon 25

10. VALENCIA v CABANTING

FACTS
- 1933 - complainant Paulino Valencia and his wife Romana bought a parcel of land from a certain
Serapia Raymundo
- Valencia spouses failed to register the sale and secure a TCT under their names
- 1968 - conference was held at atty. Jovellanos’ house to settle the dispute between complainant
vendee spouses valencia and serapia raymundo
- Serapia - the deed of sale presented by sps valencia covered a different property
- 12/15/69 - Serapia, assisted by counsel atty Cabanting filed a complaint against complainant Valencia
for the recovery of possession
- Valencia, on the other hand, engaged the services of atty Antiniw
- Paulino Valencia gave atty antiniw 200 pesos to falsify the signature of the alleged vendor
 - CFI Pangasinan ruled in favor of Serapia
- Paulino then filed for certiorari with the CA
- (while certiorari is pending) Serapia sold the litigated lot to atty Jovellanos (not their counsel) and
cabanting (their counsel)
- Paulino filed for disbarment against atty cabanting for violation of NCC 1491
- 10/1974 - Constancia Valencia (daughter of Paulino) filed an additional charges against
- Atty antiniw - for falsification
- Atty jovellanos and Cabanting - for violation of NCC 1491

ISSUE/HELD
I. W/N atty cabanting purchased the subject property in violation of 1491 NCC - YES
- NCC 1491 (5)
- Lawyers cannot acquire by purchase property under litigation/ while case is pending
- Due to the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client
- Respondent claims that the purchase was made after the finality of the judgment of the CFI
- SC
- ITC, there is still a pending certiorari proceeding
- A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court, but
also from the moment that it becomes subject to the judicial action of the judge.
- When a certiorari is pending, the property is still considered to be subject to litigation
II. W/N sale to atty jovellanos was made in violation of NCC 1491 - NO
- There was no atty client relationship between Serapia and atty jovellanos
III. Administrative Case No. 1543
● Deed of donation propter nuptias, involving the transfer of a piece of land by the grandparents of
Lydia Bernal (complainant) in favor of her parents, was lost during the last world war
o deed of confirmation of the donation propter nuptias with renunciation of her rights over the
property was executed
o Notwithstanding the deed, her grandmother still offered to sell the same property in favor of the
complainant, ostensibly to strengthen the deed of donation (to prevent others from claiming the
property)
● Atty. Antiniw advised them to execute a deed of sale. Atty. Antiniw allegedly prepared and notarized
the deed of sale in the name of her grandfather (deceased at the time of signing) with her
grandmother's approval.
● Felicidad Bernal-Duzon, her aunt who had a claim over the property, filed a complaint against her
(Lydia Bernal) and her counsel, Atty. Antiniw for falsification of a public document.
● The fiscal exonerated the counsel for lack of evidence
● Filed a disbarment proceeding (docketed as Administrative Case No. 1543) against Atty. Antiniw
for illegal acts and bad advice.

ISSUES/HELD:
Whether or not Atty. Antiniw is guilty of malpractice in falsifying notarial documents – YES
Whether or not Atty. Jovellanos are guilty of malpractice in falsifying notarial documents – NO

RATIO: It is asserted by Paulino that Atty. Antiniw asked for and received the sum of P200.00 in consideration
of his executing the document "Compraventa Definitiva"
● Atty. Antiniw simply denied this charge
● Affirmative testimony is given greater weight than negative testimony
● Declaration dwelt on a subject which was so delicate and confidential that it would be difficult to believe
the he fabricated his evidence.
 ● The first duty of a lawyer is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his client's
success is wholly subordinate
● Atty. Antiniw failed to live up to the high standards of the law profession.
● While Lydia Bernal testified in full on direct examination, she never submitted herself for
cross-examination. Atty. Antiniw was not accorded procedural due process of cross-examine the
witnesses against him, it is but proper that the direct testimony of Lydia be stricken.
● In view also of the affidavit of desistance executed by the complainant, Administrative Case No.
1543 should be dismissed.

11. FABILLO v IAC

FACTS
- Justina Fabillo is the owner of properties in Leyte
- In her last will and testament, she bequeathed her San Salvador property to her brother, petitioner
Florencio Fabillo
- After the death of Justina, petitioner Florencio filed a petition for the probate of Justina’s will (probate =
to determine whether or not the will is valid and authentic)
- Probate court approved the project of partition
- Florencio sought the assistance of respondent atty alfredo murillo in recovering the san salvador
property (which was in the possession of another)
- Petitioner client Florencio and respondent atty murillo entered into a contract of services wherein
- Atty muillo will represent florencio in such cases
- In case of success, atty murillo is entitled the sum equivalent of 40% of the proceeds derived
from the success of the case (e.g. value of the property if sold, proceeds of the mortgage, etc)
- Murillo then filed civil case to recover the san salvador property
- Murillo won and was declared by the lower court as the owner of the san salvador property and the
pugahanay property
- Murillo then took possession of 40% of the properties, pursuant to the contract of services
- However, petitioner client Florencio claimed exclusive ownership over the land and refused to give atty
murillo his share
- Murillo then filed a complaint praying that he be declared the owner of 40% of the properties
- Petitioner Florencio answer:
- Their consent to the contract of services was vitiated
- 40% was excessive
- Prayed that the contract of services be declared null and void
- Free down to 10%
- Murillo vacate property
- Lower court ruling - in favor of murillo
- Contract of services did not violate NCC 1491:
- Because the COS stipulated it as a contingent fee, which is valid
- Declared Murillo as the owner of 40% of the properties
- Petitioners (now heirs of spouses Fabillo who are now deceased) appealed to the IAC
- IAC affirmed lower court
- Hence, instant petition
- Claim that the COS violated NCC 1491

ISSUE/HELD
I. W/N the COS violated NCC 1491 - NO
 - NCC 1491 (5) prohibits lawyers from acquiring properties under litigation by virtue of sale or
assignment only
- This does not include acquisition by virtue of a contingent fee
- Because contingent fees is not made during the pendency of the litigation but after the
termination of the case
- Further, the code of professional ethics sanctions this practice
II. W/N murillo is entitled to ownership over the properties - NO
- What was agreed upon was 40% of the value of the properties
- If the parties intended Murillo to be the owner of 40% of the properties, then they would have stipulated
so
- ITC, it is vague
- In cases of vagueness, interpret in favor of client and against the lawyer

12. RUBIAS v BATILLER

FACTS
- Before the was with Japan, Francisco Militante filed with CFI Iloilo an application for the registration of
the title of subject land
- After the war, the court denied Militante’s application
- MIlitante then appealed to the CA
- And apparently, his son in law plaintiff atty domingo rubias was his counsel in this case
- Pending the appeal to the CA, militante sold the land to plaintiff atty rubias (his counsel)
- By this time, defendant batiller was in possession of the land
- Rubias then filed a case for FE and UD against respondent batiller to recover certain portions of the lot
- CFI denied the complaint
- Batiller had a better right to possess the land having been in possession under the claim of
ownership many years before militante sold the land to rubias
- Plaintiff’s contentions
- Land was formerly owned and possessed by Demontano
- Sold at public auction
- Acquired by Yap Pongco
- Pongco then sold to Militante
- Defendant batiller’s arguments
- Rubias has no cause of action because the property under dispute was the subject of LRC no.
695, to which plaintiff rubias was counsel of this father in law
- And according to NCC 1491, lawyers cannot purchase the property under litigation

ISSUE/HELD
I. W/N the COS between militante and rubias was void because it was made when rubias was counsel of
his father in law in a land registration case involving the said property - YES. it is void
- In the first place, vendor militante had no right to sell the land because his application to register the
land was denied
- Assuming that he had the right to sell the land, it would still be void for violation of NCC 1491(5):
- This sale was made during the pendency of the LRC appeal by Militante. In this case, Rubias
was counsel of Militante. Hence void
- Article 1491 of our Civil Code prohibits in its six paragraphs certain persons from acquiring such
property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial auction,"
- guardians;
- agents;
 - administrators;
- public officers and employees; judicial officers and employees, prosecuting attorneys, and
lawyers; and
- others especially disqualified by law.
- Effect - void from the beginning
- 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 (Article 1491, Civil Code), as to whose transactions it had been opined that they
may be "ratified" by means of and in "the form of a new contact, in which cases its validity shall
be determined only by the circumstances at the time the execution of such new contract. The
causes of nullity which have ceased to exist cannot impair the validity of the new contract. Thus,
the object which was illegal at the time of the first contract, may have already become lawful at
the time of the ratification or second contract; or the service which was impossible may have
become possible; or the intention which could not be ascertained may have been clarified by
the parties. The ratification or second contract would then be valid from its execution; however,
it does not retroact to the date of the first contract."

13. HALILI v CA
FACTS
- Simeon de Guzman is an american citizen
- Simeon’s wife, respondent Helen meyers De Guzman is an american citizen
- Simeon’s son, respondent David rey guzman is also an american citizen
- 1968 - Simeon died, leaving real properties in the Philippines
- His heirs were his wife and son
- Helen executed a deed of quitclaim, transferring all her rights to the properties inherited from Simeon to
David
- One of the properties is the land in question
- Located in bulacan with area of 6695 sqm
- 2/5/91 - David sold the property to respondent Cataniag
- Petitioners halili are the owners of the adjoining lot
- Petitioners halili filed a complaint with RTC Malolos Bulacan
- Questioned the validity of the conveyance between
- Helen and david
- David and cataniag
- Claims right to the property based on legal redemption under article 1621 of the NCC
- Since the land is rural land, they have the right of legal redemption
- Trial court dismissed the complaint of petitioners halili
- Helen’s waiver of her inheritance to David (who was not a filipino citizen) was not contrary to the
constitutional prohibition on the sale of land to aliens because the purpose was merely to
authorize David to dispose of the properties
- Halilis appealed to the CA - denied
- Ruled that there is no point since the property has already validly passed to a qualified person -
Cataniag (who is a filipino citizen)
- Hence, this petition

ISSUES/HELD
 I. W/N the land is urban land - YES
- This is a factual question which has already been decided by the trial court and affirmed by the CA
- Circumstances have shown that the land is urban (e.g.presence of residential and commercial
establishments, etc)
II. W/N the petitioners may invoke the right of redemption - NO
- For article 1621 to apply, both the right to be redeemed and the adjacent land must be rural
- ART. 1621. The owners of adjoining lands shall also have the right of redemption when a piece
of rural land, the area of which does not exceed one hectare, is alienated, unless the grantee
does not own any rural land.
- ITC, the lands are not rural. Hence 1621 does not apply
III. W/N sale to Cataniag is valid - YES
- The quitclaim executed by Helen is contrary to the constitution, which states - Save in cases of
hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain
- ‘Qualified’ - limited only to Filipino citizens
- Except by succession (ITC quitclaim di succession
- ITC, David is an alien, therefore he is not qualified
- HOWEVER, the subsequent sale to Cataniag is valid
- GR - Aliens cannot acquire land in the Philippines. If a land is invalidly transferred to an alien,
the flaw is corrected when:
- He subsequently becomes naturalized as a Filipino citizen
- He transfers it to a person qualified
- GR - subsequent sale cannot be impugned on the basis of the first one
- ITC, the land is sold to Cataniag who is a qualified citizen. Hence, it cannot be impugned

14. DE LEON v CA
FACTS
- The Republic of the Philippines purchased the buenavista estate for distribution among landless
tenants and farmers
- 4/1955 - 1st sale:
- Lot S-117 of the buenavista estate was sold to Manuel de leon
- 8/1969 - 2nd sale
- Lot 43 was sold to the heirs of manuel de leon. One of his heirs is petitioner restituto de leon
- In both sales, there was a condition that the properties shall not be sold, conveyed, or alienated for 5
and 15 years respectively without the consent of the proper government authorities
- Private respondents ramos and perez filed a complaint against petitioner restituto. They allege:
- In March 1959, they bought ½ of the properties from maria de los santos (Manuel’s widow) by
virtue of a tuluyang bilihan
- Maria failed to deliver to them such properties
- Restituto, who succeeded maria in the lands, resisted their demands for accounting of the
properties
- Petitioner restituto response:
- Lands belonged to him by succession
- The sale was void because maria did not obtain the consent of the proper government
authorities prior to the sale
- Lower court ruling
- In favor of respondents ramos and perez (buyers from maria)
- CA - affirmed lower court
 - Tuluyang bilihan was genuine and valid
- Restituto cannot invoke the lack of consent, only the state can
- The stipulations were not applicable to the heirs, and maria, acquired the property through
hereditary succession. Hence, the stipulations that consent is required does not apply to her
and her sale
- Hence, this petition

ISSUE/HELD
I. W/N the sale is valid despite it being done without the consent of the proper government authorities -
NO. THE SALE IS NOT VALID
- The stipulations (to obtain consent of gov’t authorities before sale) is binding upon Manuel and his
heirs
- Purpose of the stipulation - to keep the property within the family, the property which was sold to them
for a minimal price
- Exception to the stipulation
- When the land is acquired through succession (when the land is transferred to B from A by
succession, where B is an heir of A)
- ITC, when maria acquired the lands through succession, she did not need the consent of the authorities
- BUT, when she sold it, she needed the consent
- Because in that case, transfer was made through tuluyang bilihan and not hereditary succession
- Maria was not released from the conditions of the original sale just because she acquired it through
succession
- Jurisprudence has held that sales made in violation of such conditions are null and void ab intitio
- Effect:
- Ownership was never transferred to the buyers, it remained with Restituto. Hence, he has
preferred rights of possession
- Respondents allowed to recover the purchase price of the land