Rubias v.

Batiller (GR L-35702, 29 May 1973)

Facts:
Petitioner Domingo Rubias, a lawyer, filed a suit to recover the ownership and
possession of certain portions of lot which he bought from, his father-in-law (Francisco
Militante) when he was counsel of the latter in a land registration case involving the lot in
question against its present occupant respondent (Isaias Batiller). Respondent claimed that the
complaint 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.
The trial Court issued a pre-trial order which stated that during the pre-trial conference,
the parties have agreed that the facts are attendant in the case and that they will no longer
introduce any evidence, testimonial or documentary to prove them.

Issue:
WON the contract of sale between the petitioner and his father-in-law 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:
YES, manifestly, plaintiffs complaint against defendant, to be declared absolute owner of
the land and to be restored to possession thereof with damages was bereft of any factual or
legal basis.
The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his clients is categorically
prohibited by Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, and that consequently, plaintiffs
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 the Civil Code which provides that contracts expressly
prohibited or declared void by law are inexistent and void from the beginning and that
these contracts cannot be ratified.
The Court cited Director of Lands vs. Abagat (53 Phil 147; March 27, 1929), which the
Court again affirming the invalidity and nullity of the lawyers purchase of the land in litigation
from his client, ordered the issuance of writ of possession for the return of the land by the
lawyer to the adverse parties without reimbursement of the price paid by him and other
expenses.
Article 1491 of the 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
directly or indirectly and even at a public or judicial auction as follows:
a. Guardians
b. Agents
c. Administrators
d. Public officers and employees, judicial officers and employees, prosecuting
attorneys, and lawyers, and
e. Others especially disqualified by law.
Philippine Trust Co. v. Roldan (GR L-8477, 31 May 1956)

Facts:

Mariano Bernardo, a minor, inherited 17 parcels of land from his deceased father.
Respondent, Marianos step-mother, was appointed his guardian. As guardian, she sold the 17
parcels to Dr. Ramos, her brother-in-law, for P14,700. After a week, Dr. Ramos sold the lands to
her for P15,000. Subsequently, she sold 4 out of 17 parcels to Emilio Cruz. Petitioner replaced
Roldan as guardian, and two months thereafter, this litigation sought to declare as null and void
the sale to Dr. Ramos, and the sale to Emilio Cruz.

Issue:

Whether the sale of the land by the guardian is null and void for being violative of the
prohibition for a guardian to purchase either in person or through the mediation of another the
property of her ward

Held:

Remembering the general doctrine that guardianship is a trust of the highest order, and
the trustee cannot be allowed to have any inducement to neglect his wards interest, and in line
with the courts suspicion whenever the guardian acquires wards property we have no
hesitation to declare that in this case, in the eyes of the law, Socorro Roldan took by purchase
her wards parcels thru Dr. Ramos, and that Article 1459 of the Civil Code applies.
Spouses Doromal v. CA (GR L-36083, 5 September 1975)

Facts:

A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5 of the siblings
gave a Special Power of Attorney to their niece Mary Jimenez, who succeeded her father as a
co-owner, for the sale of the land to father and son Doromal. One of the co-owner, herein
petitioner, Filomena Javellana however did not gave her consent to the sale even though her
siblings executed a SPA for her signature. The co-owners went on with the sale of 6/7 part of the
land and a new title for the Doromals were issued.

Respondent offered to repurchase the land for 30K as stated in the deed of sale but petitioners
declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase. Petitioner also contend that the 30K
price was only placed in the deed of sale to minimize payment of fees and taxes and as such,
respondent should pay the real price paid which was P115, 250.

Issue:

WON the period to repurchase of petitioner has already lapsed.

Held:

Period of repurchase has not yet lapsed because the respondent was not notified of the sale.
The 30-day period for the right of repurchase starts only after actual notice not only of a
perfected sale but of actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale.

The letter sent to the respondent by the other co-owners cannot be considered as actual notice
because the letter was only to inform her of the intention to sell the property but not its actual
sale. As such, the 30-day period has not yet commenced and the respondent can still exercise
his right to repurchase.

The respondent should also pay only the 30K stipulated in the deed of sale because a
redemptioners right is to be subrogated by the same terms and conditions stipulated in the
contract.
Goldenrod v. CA (GR 126812, November 04, 1998)

Facts:

Respondents Barreto realty owns 43 parcels of land in Quiapo Manila which they mortgaged in
UCPB. Respondent sold the property to petitioner Goldenrod who In turn pays 1M earnest
money and promise to pay respondents debt to UCPB. Respondent caused 2 land titles to the
property.

Petitioner was not able to pay UCPB and the latter did not agree for and extension. Hence,
petitioner rescinded the contact and demands the return of the earnest money.

Respondent did not oppose the recession but did not give the earnest money. They even sold
the first lot to Asiaworld Trade Center and the other lot to UCPB for payment of their mortgage.

Issue:

WON respondent should return the earnest money of the petitioner.

Held:

Earnest money is a part of payment of a sale. Art. 1385 of the Civil Code provides that rescission
creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract together with
their fruits and interest. Since the respondent did not oppose the extra-judicial rescission, they
should return the earnest money of the petitioner. It would be most inequitable if respondent
BARRETTO REALTY would be allowed to retain petitioner's payment of Php 1,000,000.00 and at
the same time appropriate the proceeds of the second sale made to another.