Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-35702 May 29, 1973

DOMINGO D. RUBIAS, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ISAIAS BATILLER, defendant-appellee.

Gregorio M. Rubias for plaintiff-appellant.

Vicente R. Acsay for defendant-appellee.

TEEHANKEE, J.:

In this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court as involving purely legal questions, we affirm the dismissal order
rendered by the Iloilo court of first instance after pre-trial and submittal of the pertinent documentary exhibits.

Such dismissal was proper, plaintiff having no cause of action, since it was duly established in the record that the application
for registration of the land in question filed by Francisco Militante, plaintiff's vendor and predecessor interest, had been
dismissed by decision of 1952 of the land registration court as affirmed by final judgment in 1958 of the Court of Appeals
and hence, there was no title or right to the land that could be transmitted by the purported sale to plaintiff.

As late as 1964, the Iloilo court of first instance had in another case of ejectment likewise upheld by final judgment
defendant's "better right to possess the land in question . having been in the actual possession thereof under a claim of title
many years before Francisco Militante sold the land to the plaintiff."

Furthermore, even assuming that Militante had anything to sell, the deed of sale executed in 1956 by him in favor of plaintiff
at a time when plaintiff was concededly his counsel of record in the land registration case involving the very land in dispute
(ultimately decided adversely against Militante by the Court of Appeals' 1958 judgment affirming the lower court's dismissal
of Militante's application for registration) was properly declared inexistent and void by the lower court, as decreed by Article
1409 in relation to Article 1491 of the Civil Code.

The appellate court, in its resolution of certification of 25 July 1972, gave the following backgrounder of the appeal at bar:

On August 31, 1964, plaintiff Domingo D. Rubias, a lawyer, filed a suit to recover the ownership and
possession of certain portions of lot under Psu-99791 located in Barrio General Luna, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo
which he bought from his father-in-law, Francisco 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. (pp. 1-7, Record on Appeal). In his answer
with counter-claim defendant claims the complaint of the plaintiff 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 and for the alleged malicious institution of the complaint he claims he has suffered moral
damages in the amount of P 2,000.00, as well as the sum of P500.00 for attorney's fees. ...

On December 9, 1964, the trial court issued a pre-trial order, after a pre-trial conference between the
parties and their counsel which order reads as follows..

'When this case was called for a pre-trial conference today, the plaintiff appeared
assisted by himself and Atty. Gregorio M. Rubias. The defendant also appeared,
assisted by his counsel Atty. Vicente R. Acsay.
 A. During the pre-trial conference, the parties have agreed that the following facts are
attendant in this case and that they will no longer introduced any evidence,
testimonial or documentary to prove them:

1. That Francisco Militante claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in the Barrio of General Luna,
municipality of Barotac Viejo province of Iloilo, which he caused to be surveyed on July 18-31, 1934,
whereby he was issued a plan Psu-99791 (Exhibit "B"). (The land claimed contained an area of 171:3561
hectares.)

2. Before the war with Japan, Francisco Militante filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo an
application for the registration of the title of the land technically described in psu-99791 (Exh.
"B") opposed by the Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry and other oppositors. However, during the
war with Japan, the record of the case was lost before it was heard, so after the war Francisco Militante
petitioned this court to reconstitute the record of the case. The record was reconstituted on the Court of
the First Instance of Iloilo and docketed as Land Case No. R-695, GLRO Rec. No. 54852. The Court of
First Instance heard the land registration case on November 14, 1952, and after the trial this court
dismissed the application for registration. The appellant, Francisco Militante, appealed from the decision
of this Court to the Court of Appeals where the case was docketed as CA-GR No. 13497-R..

3. Pending the disposal of the appeal in CA-GR No. 13497-R and more particularly on June 18, 1956,
Francisco Militante sold to the plaintiff, Domingo Rubias the land technically described in psu-99791
(Exh. "A"). The sale was duly recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province of Iloilo as
Entry No. 13609 on July 11, 1960 (Exh. "A-1").

(NOTE: As per deed of sale, Exh. A, what Militante purportedly sold to plaintiff-appellant, his son-in-
law, for the sum of P2,000.00 was "a parcel of untitled land having an area Of 144.9072 hectares ...
surveyed under Psu 99791 ... (and) subject to the exclusions made by me, under (case) CA-i3497, Land
Registration Case No. R-695, G.L.R.O. No. 54852, Court of First Instance of the province of Iloilo. These
exclusions referred to portions of the original area of over 171 hectares originally claimed by Militante as
applicant, but which he expressly recognized during the trial to pertain to some oppositors, such as the
Bureau of Public Works and Bureau of Forestry and several other individual occupants and accordingly
withdrew his application over the same. This is expressly made of record in Exh. A, which is the Court of
Appeals' decision of 22 September 1958 confirming the land registration court's dismissal of Militante's
application for registration.)

4. On September 22,1958 the Court of appeals in CA-G.R. No. 13497-R promulgated its judgment
confirming the decision of this Court in Land Case No. R-695, GLRO Rec. No. 54852 which dismissed
the application for Registration filed by Francisco Militante (Exh. "I").

5. Domingo Rubias declared the land described in Exh. 'B' for taxation purposes under Tax Dec. No.
8585 (Exh. "C") for 1957; Tax Dec. Nos. 9533 (Exh. "C-1") and 10019 (Exh. "C-3")for the year 1961; Tax
Dec. No. 9868 (Exh. "C-2") for the year 1964, paying the land taxes under Tax Dec. No. 8585 and 9533
(Exh. "D", "D-1", "G-6").

6. Francisco Militante immediate predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, has also declared the land for
taxation purposes under Tax Dec. No. 5172 in 1940 (Exh. "E") for 1945; under Tax Dec. No. T-86 (Exh.
"E-1") for 1948; under Tax Dec. No. 7122 (Exh. "2"), and paid the land taxes for 1940 (Exhs. "G" and "G-
7"), for 1945 46 (Exh. "G-1") for 1947 (Exh. "G-2"), for 1947 & 1948 (Exh. "G-3"), for 1948 (Exh. "G-4"),
and for 1948 and 1949 (Exh. "G-5").

7. Tax Declaration No. 2434 in the name of Liberato Demontaño for the land described therein (Exh. "F")
was cancelled by Tax. Dec. No. 5172 of Francisco Militante (Exh. "E"). Liberato Demontaño paid the land
tax under Tax Dec. No. 2434 on Dec. 20, 1939 for the years 1938 (50%) and 1959 (Exh. "H").

8. The defendant had declared for taxation purposes Lot No. 2 of the Psu-155241 under Tax Dec. Not.
8583 for 1957 and a portion of Lot No. 2, Psu-155241, for 1945 under Tax Dec. No. 8584 (Exh. "2-A" Tax
No. 8583 (Exh. "2") was revised by Tax Dec. No. 9498 in the name of the defendant (Exh. "2-B") and Tax
Dec. No. 8584 (Exh. "2-A") was cancelled by Tax Dec. No. 9584 also in the name of the defendant (Exh.
"2-C"). The defendant paid the land taxes for Lot 2, Psu-155241, on Nov. 9, 1960 for the years 1945 and
1946, for the year 1950, and for the year 1960 as shown by the certificate of the treasurer (Exh. "3"). The
defendant may present to the Court other land taxes receipts for the payment of taxes for this lot.
 9. The land claimed by the defendant as his own was surveyed on June 6 and 7,1956, and a
plan approved by Director of Land on November 15, 1956 was issued, identified as Psu 155241 (Exh.
"5").

10. On April 22, 1960, the plaintiff filed forcible Entry and Detainer case against Isaias Batiller in the
Justice of the Peace Court of Barotac Viejo Province of Iloilo (Exh. "4") to which the defendant Isaias
Batiller riled his answer on August 29, 1960 (Exh. "4-A"). The Municipal Court of Barotac Viejo after
trial, decided the case on May 10, 1961 in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff (Exh. "4-B").
The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the Municipal Court of Barotac Viejo which was docketed in
this Court as Civil Case No. 5750 on June 3, 1961, to which the defendant, Isaias Batiller, on June 13,
1961 filed his answer (Exh. "4-C"). And this Court after the trial. decided the case on November 26,
1964, in favor of the defendant, Isaias Batiller and against the plaintiff (Exh. "4-D").

(NOTE: As per Exh. 4-B, which is the Iloilo court of first instance decision of 26 November
1964 dismissing plaintiff's therein complaint for ejectment against defendant, the iloilo court expressly
found "that plaintiff's complaint is unjustified, intended to harass the defendant" and "that the defendant,
Isaias Batiller, has a better right to possess the land in question described in Psu 155241 (Exh. "3"),
Isaias Batiller having been in the actual physical possession thereof under a claim of title many years
before Francisco Militante sold the land to the plaintiff-hereby dismissing plaintiff's complaint and
ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant attorney's fees ....")

B. During the trial of this case on the merit, the plaintiff will prove by competent evidence the following:

1. That the land he purchased from Francisco Militante under Exh. "A" was formerly owned and
possessed by Liberato Demontaño but that on September 6, 1919 the land was sold at public auction by
virtue of a judgment in a Civil Case entitled "Edw J. Pflieder plaintiff vs. Liberato Demontaño Francisco
Balladeros and Gregorio Yulo, defendants", of which Yap Pongco was the purchaser (Exh. "1-3"). The
sale was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo on August 4, 1920, under Primary Entry
No. 69 (Exh. "1"), and a definite Deed of Sale was executed by Constantino A. Canto, provincial Sheriff
of Iloilo, on Jan. 19, 1934 in favor of Yap Pongco (Exh. "I"), the sale having been registered in the Office
of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo on February 10, 1934 (Exh. "1-1").

2. On September 22, 1934, Yap Pongco sold this land to Francisco Militante as evidenced by a notarial
deed (Exh. "J") which was registered in the Registry of Deeds on May 13, 1940 (Exh. "J-1").

3. That plaintiff suffered damages alleged in his complaint.

C. Defendants, on the other hand will prove by competent evidence during the trial of this case the following facts:

1. That lot No. 2 of the Psu-1552 it (Exh. '5') was originally owned and possessed by Felipe Batiller,
grandfather of the defendant Basilio Batiller, on the death of the former in 1920, as his sole heir. Isaias
Batiller succeeded his father , Basilio Batiller, in the ownership and possession of the land in the year
1930, and since then up to the present, the land remains in the possession of the defendant, his
possession being actual, open, public, peaceful and continuous in the concept of an owner, exclusive of
any other rights and adverse to all other claimants.

2. That the alleged predecessors in interest of the plaintiff have never been in the actual possession of
the land and that they never had any title thereto.

3. That Lot No. 2, Psu 155241, the subject of Free Patent application of the defendant has
been approved.

4. The damages suffered by the defendant, as alleged in his counterclaim."' 1

The appellate court further related the developments of the case, as follows:

On August 17, 1965, defendant's counsel manifested in open court that before any trial on the merit of
the case could proceed he would file a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint which he did, alleging
that plaintiff does not have cause of action against him because the property in dispute which he
(plaintiff) allegedly bought from his father-in-law, Francisco Militante was the subject matter of LRC No.
 695 filed in the CFI of Iloilo, which case was brought on appeal to this Court and docketed as CA-G.R.
No. 13497-R in which aforesaid case plaintiff was the counsel on record of his father-in-law, Francisco
Militante. Invoking Arts. 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code which reads:

'Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:

xxx xxx xxx

(7) Those expressly prohibited by law.

'ART. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire any purchase, even at a public
auction, either in person of 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 of 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 an 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.'

defendant claims that plaintiff could not have acquired any interest in the property in dispute as the
contract he (plaintiff) had with Francisco Militante was inexistent and void. (See pp. 22-31, Record on
Appeal). Plaintiff strongly opposed defendant's motion to dismiss claiming that defendant can not invoke
Articles 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code as Article 1422 of the same Code provides that 'The defense of
illegality of contracts is not available to third persons whose interests are not directly affected' (See pp.
32-35 Record on Appeal).

On October 18, 1965, the lower court issued an order disclaiming plaintiffs complaint (pp. 42-49, Record
on Appeal.) In the aforesaid order of dismissal the lower court practically agreed with defendant's
contention that the contract (Exh. A) between plaintiff and Francism Militante was null and void. In due
season plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (pp. 50-56 Record on Appeal) which was denied by the
lower court on January 14, 1966 (p. 57, Record on Appeal).

Hence, this appeal by plaintiff from the orders of October 18, 1965 and January 14, 1966.

Plaintiff-appellant imputes to the lower court the following errors:

'1. The lower court erred in holding that the contract of sale between the plaintiff-
appellant and his father-in-law, Francisco Militante, Sr., now deceased, of the property
covered by Plan Psu-99791, (Exh. "A") was void, not voidable because it was made
when plaintiff-appellant was the counsel of the latter in the Land Registration case.

'2. The lower court erred in holding that the defendant-appellee is an interested
person to question the validity of the contract of sale between plaintiff-appellant and
the deceased, Francisco Militante, Sr.

'3. The lower court erred in entertaining the motion to dismiss of the defendant-
appellee after he had already filed his answer, and after the termination of the pre-
trial, when the said motion to dismiss raised a collateral question.

'4. The lower court erred in dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff-appellant.'

The appellate court concluded that plaintiffs "assignment of errors gives rise to two (2) legal posers — (1) whether or not the
contract of sale between appellant and his father-in-law, the late Francisco Militante over the property subject of Plan Psu-
99791 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; and (2) whether or not the lower court was correct in entertaining defendant-appellee's motion to dismiss
after the latter had already filed his answer and after he (defendant) and plaintiff-appellant had agreed on some matters in a
pre-trial conference. Hence, its elevation of the appeal to this Court as involving pure questions of law.

It is at once evident from the foregoing narration that the pre-trial conference held by the trial court at which the parties with
their counsel agreed and stipulated on the material and relevant facts and submitted their respective documentary exhibits
as referred to in the pre-trial order, supra,2 practically amounted to a fulldress trial which placed on record all the facts and
exhibits necessary for adjudication of the case.

The three points on which plaintiff reserved the presentation of evidence at the-trial dealing with the source of the alleged
right and title of Francisco Militante's predecessors, supra,3 actually are already made of record in the stipulated
facts and admitted exhibits. The chain of Militante's alleged title and right to the land as supposedly traced back to Liberato
Demontaño was actually asserted by Militante (and his vendee, lawyer and son-in-law, herein plaintiff) in the land
registration case and rejected by the Iloilo land registration court which dismissed Militante's application for registration of
the land. Such dismissal, as already stated, was affirmed by the final judgment in 1958 of the Court of Appeals. 4

The four points on which defendant on his part reserved the presentation of evidence at the trial dealing with his and his
ancestors' continuous, open, public and peaceful possession in the concept of owner of the land and the Director of Lands'
approval of his survey plan thereof, supra,5 are likewise already duly established facts of record, in the land registration case
as well as in the ejectment case wherein the Iloilo court of first instance recognized the superiority of defendant's right to the
land as against plaintiff.

No error was therefore committed by the lower court in dismissing plaintiff's complaint upon defendant's motion after the pre-
trial.

1. The stipulated facts and exhibits of record indisputably established plaintiff's lack of cause of action and justified the
outright dismissal of the complaint. 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.

Manifestly, then plaintiff's 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.

2. 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, reproduced supra;6 and
that consequently, plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation from his client (assuming that his client could sell the same
since as already shown above, his client's claim to the property was defeated and rejected) was void and could produce no
legal effect, by virtue of Article 1409, paragraph (7) of our Civil Code which provides that contracts "expressly prohibited or
declared void by law' are "inexistent and that "(T)hese contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the
defense of illegality be waived."

The 1911 case of Wolfson vs. Estate of Martinez7 relied upon by plaintiff as holding that a sale of property in litigation to the
party litigant's lawyer "is not void but voidable at the election of the vendor" was correctly held by the lower court to have
been superseded by the later 1929 case of Director of Lands vs. Abagat.8 In this later case of Abagat, the Court expressly
cited two antecedent cases involving the same transaction of purchase of property in litigation by the lawyer which was
expressly declared invalid under Article 1459 of the Civil Code of Spain (of which Article 1491 of our Civil Code of the
Philippines is the counterpart) upon challenge thereof not by the vendor-client but by the adverse parties against whom the
lawyer was to enforce his rights as vendee thus acquired.

These two antecedent cases thus cited in Abagat clearly superseded (without so expressly stating the previous ruling
in Wolfson:

The spouses, Juan Soriano and Vicente Macaraeg, were the owners of twelve parcels of land. Vicenta
Macaraeg died in November, 1909, leaving a large number of collateral heirs but no descendants.
Litigation between the surviving husband, Juan Soriano, and the heirs of Vicenta immediately arose, and
the herein appellant Sisenando Palarca acted as Soriano's lawyer. On May 2, 1918, Soriano executed a
deed for the aforesaid twelve parcels of land in favor of Sisenando Palarca and on the following day, May
 3, 1918, Palarca filed an application for the registration of the land in the deed. After hearing, the Court of
First Instance declared that the deed was invalid by virtue of the provisions of article 1459 of the Civil
Code, which prohibits lawyers and solicitors from purchasing property rights involved in any litigation in
which they take part by virtue of their profession. The application for registration was consequently
denied, and upon appeal by Palarca to the Supreme Court, the judgement of the lower court was
affirmed by a decision promulgated November 16,1925. (G.R. No. 24329, Palarca vs. Director of Lands,
not reported.)

In the meantime cadastral case No. 30 of the Province of Tarlac was instituted, and on August 21, 1923,
Eleuteria Macaraeg, as administratrix of the estate of Vicente Macaraeg, filed claims for the parcels in
question. Buenaventura Lavitoria administrator of the estate of Juan Soriano, did likewise and so did
Sisenando Palarca. In a decision dated June 21, 1927, the Court of First Instance, Judge Carballo
presiding, rendered judgment in favor of Palarea and ordered the registration of the land in his
name. Upon appeal to this court by the administration of the estates of Juan Soriano and Vicente
Macaraeg, the judgment of the court below was reversed and the land adjudicated to the two estates as
conjugal property of the deceased spouses. (G.R. No. 28226, Director of Lands vs. Abagat, promulgated
May 21, 1928, not reported.)9

In the very case of Abagat itself, the Court, again affirming the invalidity and nullity of the lawyer's purchase of the land in
litigation from his client, ordered the issuance of a 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, and ruled that "the appellant Palarca is a lawyer
and is presumed to know the law. He must, therefore, from the beginning, have been well aware of the defect in his title and
is, consequently, a possessor in bad faith."

As already stated, Wolfson and Abagat were decided with relation to Article 1459 of the Civil Code of Spain then adopted
here, until it was superseded on August 30, 1950 by the Civil Code of the Philippines whose counterpart provision is Article
1491.

Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459 of the Spanish 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.

In Wolfson which involved the sale and assignment of a money judgment by the client to the lawyer, Wolfson, whose right to
so purchase the judgment was being challenged by the judgment debtor, the Court, through Justice Moreland, then
expressly reserved decision on "whether or not the judgment in question actually falls within the prohibition of the article" and
held only that the sale's "voidability can not be asserted by one not a party to the transaction or his representative," citing
from Manresa 10 that "(C)onsidering the question from the point of view of the civil law, the view taken by the code, we must
limit ourselves to classifying as void all acts done contrary to the express prohibition of the statute. Now then: As the code
does not recognize such nullity by the mere operation of law, the nullity of the acts hereinbefore referred to must be asserted
by the person having the necessary legal capacity to do so and decreed by a competent
court." 11

The reason thus given by Manresa in considering such prohibited acquisitions under Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code
as merely voidable at the instance and option of the vendor and not void — "that the Code does not recognize such
nullity de pleno derecho" — is no longer true and applicable to our own Philippine Civil Code which does recognize the
absolute nullity of contracts "whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy" or which are "expressly prohibited or declared void by law" and declares such contracts "inexistent and void
from the beginning." 12

The Supreme Court of Spain and modern authors have likewise veered from Manresa's view of the Spanish codal provision
itself. In its sentencia of 11 June 1966, the Supreme Court of Spain ruled that the prohibition of Article 1459 of the Spanish
Civil Code is based on public policy, that violation of the prohibition contract cannot be validated by confirmation or
ratification, holding that:

... la prohibicion que el articulo 1459 del C.C. establece respecto a los administradores y apoderados, la
cual tiene conforme a la doctrina de esta Sala, contendia entre otras, en S. de 27-5-1959, un fundamento
de orden moral lugar la violacion de esta a la nulidad de pleno derecho del acto o negocio celebrado, ...
y prohibicion legal, afectante orden publico, no cabe con efecto alguno la aludida retification ... 13
The criterion of nullity of such prohibited contracts under Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code (Article 1491 of our Civil
Code) as a matter of public order and policy as applied by the Supreme Court of Spain to administrators and agents in its
above cited decision should certainly apply with greater reason to judges, judicial officers, fiscals and lawyers under
paragraph 5 of the codal article.

Citing the same decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, Gullon Ballesteros, his "Curso de Derecho Civil, (Contratos
Especiales)" (Madrid, 1968) p. 18, affirms that, with respect to Article 1459, Spanish Civil Code:.

Que caracter tendra la compra que se realice por estas personas? Porsupuesto no cabe duda de que el
caso (art.) 1459, 40 y 50, la nulidad esabsoluta porque el motivo de la prohibicion es de orden publico. 14

Perez Gonzales in such view, stating that "Dado el caracter prohibitivo delprecepto, la consequencia de la infraccion es la
nulidad radical y ex lege." 15

Castan, quoting Manresa's own observation that.

"El fundamento do esta prohibicion es clarisimo. No sa trata con este precepto tan solo de guitar la ocasion al fraude;
persiguese, ademasel proposito de rodear a las personas que intervienen en la administrcionde justicia de todos los retigios
que necesitan pora ejercer su ministerio librandolos de toda suspecha, que aunque fuere in fundada, redundura
endescredito de la institucion." 16 arrives at the contrary and now accepted view that "Puede considerace en nuestro
derecho inexistente 'o radicalmente nulo el contrato en los siguentes cases: a) ...; b) cuando el contrato se ha celebrado en
violacion de una prescripcion 'o prohibicion legal, fundada sobre motivos de orden publico (hipotesis del art. 4 del
codigo) ..." 17

It is noteworthy that Caltan's rationale for his conclusion that fundamental consideration of public policy render void and
inexistent such expressly prohibited purchase (e.g. by public officers and employees of government property intrusted to
them and by justices, judges, fiscals and lawyers of property and rights in litigation and submitted to or handled by them,
under Article 1491, paragraphs (4) and (5) of our Civil Code) has been adopted in a new article of our Civil Code, viz, Article
1409 declaring such prohibited contracts as "inexistent and void from the beginning." 18

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 his 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." 19

As applied to the case at bar, the lower court therefore properly acted upon defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss on the
ground of nullity of plaintiff's alleged purchase of the land, since its juridical effects and plaintiff's alleged cause of action
founded thereon were being asserted against defendant-appellant. The principles governing the nullity of such prohibited
contracts and judicial declaration of their nullity have been well restated by Tolentino in his treatise on our Civil Code, as
follows:

Parties Affected. — Any person may invoke the in existence of the contract whenever juridical effects
founded thereon are asserted against him. Thus, if there has been a void transfer of property, the
transferor can recover it by the accion reinvindicatoria; and any prossessor may refuse to deliver it to the
transferee, who cannot enforce the contract. Creditors may attach property of the debtor which has been
alienated by the latter under a void contract; a mortgagee can allege the inexistence of a prior
encumbrance; a debtor can assert the nullity of an assignment of credit as a defense to an action by the
assignee.

Action On Contract. — Even when the contract is void or inexistent, an action is necessary to declare its
inexistence, when it has already been fulfilled. Nobody can take the law into his own hands; hence, the
intervention of the competent court is necessary to declare the absolute nullity of the contract and to
decree the restitution of what has been given under it. The judgment, however, will retroact to the very
day when the contract was entered into.
 If the void contract is still fully executory, no party need bring an action to declare its nullity; but if any
party should bring an action to enforce it, the other party can simply set up the nullity as a defense. 20

ACCORDINGLY, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs in all instances against plaintiff-
appellant. So ordered.

Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,. Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Notes in parenthesis are added.

2 At pages 2 to 5; sub-paragraphs 1 to 10 of Par. A.

3 At pages 5 to 6; sub-paragraphs 1 to 3 of Par. B.

4 Exhibit "1".

5 At page 6; sub-paragraphs 1 to 4 of Par. C.

6 At page 7.

7 Phil. 340, 342-343 (Oct. 13, 1911).

8 Phil. 147 (March 27, 1929).

9 53 Phil. at pp. 147-148; emphasis added.

10 Vol. 10, P.108.

11 Phil. at p. 343.

12 Article 1409, pars. (1) and (7), Philippine Civil Code.

13 Rodriguez Navarro, Doctrina Civil del Tribunal Supremo, Appendice de 1961-1966, pp. 693-694;
emphasis added.

14 Emphasis added.

15 Perez Gonzales & Alguer: Enneccerus, Derecho Civil, Tomo II have been clarified by the parties. The
ratification or second — 20, p.26.

16 Castan, Derecho Civil Tomo 4, p. 73 (9a Ed.), citing 10 Manresa 107; emphasis added.

17 Castan, Derecho Civil, Tomo 3, p. 437 (8a Ed.); emphasis added.

18 Tolentino in Vol. IV, p. 575, states that as to the "Source of Article(that) This provision is new but
merely groups together contracts which have already been considered as void and initio under the old
Civil Code, as interpreted by jurispundence and commentators."

19 Idem, at pp. 578-579.

20 Idem, at p. 578.