ACCORDINGLY, The Order of Dismissal Appealed From Is Hereby Affirmed
ACCORDINGLY, The Order of Dismissal Appealed From Is Hereby Affirmed
ACCORDINGLY, The Order of Dismissal Appealed From Is Hereby Affirmed
made when plaintiff was the counsel property in their trust or control
G.R. No. L-35702 May 29, 1973 of the latter in the Land Registration either directly or indirectly and
case invoking Articles 1409 and "even at a public or judicial
DOMINGO D. RUBIAS, vs. ISAIAS 1491 of the Civil Code. auction," as follows: (1) guardians;
BATILLER (2) agents; (3) administrators; (4)
ISSUE: public officers and employees;
FACTS: Whether or not the contract of sale judicial officers and employees,
between plaintiff and his father-in- prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers;
Plaintiff Domingo D. Rubias, a law over the property was void and (6) others especially
lawyer, filed a forcible Entry and because it was made when plaintiff disqualified by law. The rationale for
unlawful Detainer, a suit to recover was counsel of his father-in-law in a that fundamental consideration of
the ownership and possession of land registration case involving the public policy render void and
certain portions of lot located in property in dispute? inexistent such expressly prohibited
Iloilo which he bought from his purchase.
father-in-law, Francisco Militante HELD:
against its present occupant Article 1409 of the Civil Code,
defendant, Isaias Batiller, who YES. declared such prohibited contracts
illegally entered said portions of the as “inexistent and void from the
lot. The purchase by a lawyer of the beginning
property in litigation from his client ."
In his answer defendant claims that is categorically prohibited by Article
the complaint of the plaintiff does 1491, paragraph (5) of the Civil Indeed, the nullity of such
not state a cause of action, the truth Code, and that consequently, prohibited contracts is definite and
of the matter being that he and his plaintiff's purchase of the property permanent and cannot be cured by
predecessors-in-interest have in litigation from his client was void ratification. The public interest and
always been in actual, open and and could produce no legal effect, public policy remain paramount and
continuous possession since time by virtue of Article 1409, paragraph do not permit of compromise or
immemorial under claim of (7) of our Civil Code which provides ratification.
ownership of the portions of the lot that contracts"expressly prohibited
in question. or declared void by law are ACCORDINGLY, the order of
inexistent and that these contracts dismissal appealed from is hereby
Furthermore defendant alleged that cannot beratified.Article 1491 of our affirmed.
the contract of sale between the Civil Code prohibits certain persons,
plaintiff and his father-in-law, by reason of the relation of trustor
Francisco Militante, Sr., of the their peculiar control over the
decreed by Article 1409 in relation to Article 1491 of the Civil court to reconstitute the record of the case. The record was
Code. reconstituted on the Court of the First Instance of Iloilo and
docketed as Land Case No. R-695, GLRO Rec. No. 54852.
FULL TEXT The Court of First Instance heard the land registration case
The appellate court, in its resolution of certification of 25 July on November 14, 1952, and after the trial this court dismissed
1972, gave the following backgrounder of the appeal at bar: the application for registration. The appellant, Francisco
G.R. No. L-35702 May 29, 1973 Militante, appealed from the decision of this Court to the
Court of Appeals where the case was docketed as CA-GR
On August 31, 1964, plaintiff Domingo D. Rubias, a lawyer,
No. 13497-R..
DOMINGO D. RUBIAS, plaintiff-appellant, filed a suit to recover the ownership and possession of certain
vs. portions of lot under Psu-99791 located in Barrio General
ISAIAS BATILLER, defendant-appellee. Luna, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo which he bought from his father-in- 3. Pending the disposal of the appeal in CA-GR No. 13497-R
law, Francisco Militante in 1956 against its present occupant and more particularly on June 18, 1956, Francisco Militante
defendant, Isaias Batiller, who illegally entered said portions sold to the plaintiff, Domingo Rubias the land technically
Gregorio M. Rubias for plaintiff-appellant. of the lot on two occasions — in 1945 and in 1959. Plaintiff described in psu-99791 (Exh. "A"). The sale was duly
prayed also for damages and attorneys fees. (pp. 1-7, Record recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the
on Appeal). In his answer with counter-claim defendant province of Iloilo as Entry No. 13609 on July 11, 1960 (Exh.
Vicente R. Acsay for defendant-appellee. claims the complaint of the plaintiff does not state a cause of "A-1").
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 (NOTE: As per deed of sale, Exh. A, what Militante
claim of ownership of the portions of the lot in question and purportedly sold to plaintiff-appellant, his son-in-law,for the
TEEHANKEE, J.: for the alleged malicious institution of the complaint he claims sum of P2,000.00 was "a parcel of untitled land having an
he has suffered moral damages in the amount of P 2,000.00, area Of 144.9072 hectares ... surveyed under Psu 99791 ...
as well as the sum of P500.00 for attorney's fees. ... (and) subject to the exclusions made by me, under
In this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court (case) CA-i3497, Land Registration Case No. R-695,
as involving purely legal questions, we affirm the dismissal G.L.R.O. No. 54852, Court of First Instance of the province of
order rendered by the Iloilo court of first instance after pre-trial On December 9, 1964, the trial court issued a pre-trial order, Iloilo. These exclusions referred to portions of the original
and submittal of the pertinent documentary exhibits. after a pre-trial conference between the parties and their area of over 171 hectares originally claimed by Militante as
counsel which order reads as follows.. applicant, but which he expressly recognized during the trial
to pertain to some oppositors, such as the Bureau of Public
Such dismissal was proper, plaintiff having no cause of Works and Bureau of Forestry and several other individual
action, since it was duly established in the record that the 'When this case was called for a pre-trial conference today,
occupants and accordingly withdrew his application over the
application for registration of the land in question filed by the plaintiff appeared assisted by himself and Atty. Gregorio
same. This is expressly made of record in Exh. A, which is
Francisco Militante, plaintiff's vendor and predecessor M. Rubias. The defendant also appeared, assisted by his
the Court of Appeals' decision of 22 September 1958
interest, had been dismissed by decision of 1952 of the land counsel Atty. Vicente R. Acsay.
confirming the land registration court's dismissal of Militante's
registration court as affirmed by final judgment in 1958 of the application for registration.)
Court of Appeals and hence, there was no title or right to the
land that could be transmitted by the purported sale to A. During the pre-trial conference, the parties have agreed
plaintiff. that the following facts are attendant in this case and that
4. On September 22,1958 the Court of appeals in CA-G.R.
they will no longer introduced any evidence, testimonial or
No. 13497-R promulgated its judgment confirming the
documentary to prove them:
decision of this Court in Land Case No. R-695, GLRO Rec.
As late as 1964, the Iloilo court of first instance had in another No. 54852 which dismissed the application for Registration
case of ejectment likewise upheld by final judgment filed by Francisco Militante (Exh. "I").
defendant's "better right to possess the land in question . 1. That Francisco Militante claimed ownership of a parcel of
having been in the actual possession thereof under a claim of land located in the Barrio of General Luna, municipality of
title many years before Francisco Militante sold the land to Barotac Viejo province of Iloilo, which he caused to be
5. Domingo Rubias declared the land described in Exh. 'B' for
the plaintiff." surveyed on July 18-31, 1934, whereby he was issued a plan
taxation purposes under Tax Dec. No. 8585 (Exh. "C") for
Psu-99791 (Exhibit "B"). (The land claimed contained an area
1957; Tax Dec. Nos. 9533 (Exh. "C-1") and 10019 (Exh. "C-
of 171:3561 hectares.)
3")for the year 1961; Tax Dec. No. 9868 (Exh. "C-2") for the
Furthermore, even assuming that Militante had anything to year 1964, paying the land taxes under Tax Dec. No. 8585
sell, the deed of sale executed in 1956 by him in favor of and 9533 (Exh. "D", "D-1", "G-6").
plaintiff at a time when plaintiff was concededly his counsel of 2. Before the war with Japan, Francisco Militante filed with the
record in the land registration case involving the very land in Court of First Instance of Iloilo an application for the
dispute (ultimately decided adversely against Militante by the registration of the title of the land technically described in psu-
6. Francisco Militante immediate predecessor-in-interest of
Court of Appeals' 1958 judgment affirming the lower court's 99791 (Exh. "B") opposed by the Director of Lands, the
the plaintiff, has also declared the land for taxation purposes
dismissal of Militante's application for registration) was Director of Forestry and other oppositors. However, during
under Tax Dec. No. 5172 in 1940 (Exh. "E") for 1945; under
properly declared inexistent and void by the lower court, as the war with Japan, the record of the case was lost before it
Tax Dec. No. T-86 (Exh. "E-1") for 1948; under Tax Dec. No.
was heard, so after the war Francisco Militante petitioned this
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 land to the plaintiff-hereby dismissing plaintiff's complaint and The appellate court further related the developments of the
1947 & 1948 (Exh. "G-3"), for 1948 (Exh. "G-4"), and for 1948 ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant attorney's fees ....") case, as follows:
and 1949 (Exh. "G-5").
B. During the trial of this case on the merit, the plaintiff will On August 17, 1965, defendant's counsel manifested in open
7. Tax Declaration No. 2434 in the name of Liberato prove by competent evidence the following: court that before any trial on the merit of the case could
Demontaño for the land described therein (Exh. "F") was proceed he would file a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint
cancelled by Tax. Dec. No. 5172 of Francisco Militante (Exh. which he did, alleging thatplaintiff does not have cause of
"E"). Liberato Demontaño paid the land tax under Tax Dec. 1. That the land he purchased from Francisco Militante under action against him because the property in dispute which he
No. 2434 on Dec. 20, 1939 for the years 1938 (50%) and Exh. "A" was formerly owned and possessed by Liberato (plaintiff) allegedly bought from his father-in-law, Francisco
1959 (Exh. "H"). Demontaño but that on September 6, 1919 the land was sold Militante was the subject matter of LRC No. 695 filed in the
at public auction by virtue of a judgment in a Civil Case CFI of Iloilo, which case was brought on appeal to this Court
entitled "Edw J. Pflieder plaintiff vs. Liberato Demontaño and docketed as CA-G.R. No. 13497-R in which aforesaid
8. The defendant had declared for taxation purposes Lot No. Francisco Balladeros and Gregorio Yulo, defendants", of case plaintiff was the counsel on record of his father-in-law,
2 of the Psu-155241 under Tax Dec. Not. 8583 for 1957 and which Yap Pongco was the purchaser (Exh. "1-3"). The sale Francisco Militante. Invoking Arts. 1409 and 1491 of the Civil
a portion of Lot No. 2, Psu-155241, for 1945 under Tax Dec. was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo Code which reads:
No. 8584 (Exh. "2-A" Tax No. 8583 (Exh. "2") was revised by on August 4, 1920, under Primary Entry No. 69 (Exh. "1"),
Tax Dec. No. 9498 in the name of the defendant (Exh. "2-B") and a definite Deed of Sale was executed by Constantino A.
and Tax Dec. No. 8584 (Exh. "2-A") was cancelled by Tax Canto, provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, on Jan. 19, 1934 in favor of 'Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void
Dec. No. 9584 also in the name of the defendant (Exh. "2-C"). Yap Pongco (Exh. "I"), the sale having been registered in the from the beginning:
The defendant paid the land taxes for Lot 2, Psu-155241, on Office of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo on February 10, 1934
Nov. 9, 1960 for the years 1945 and 1946, for the year 1950, (Exh. "1-1").
and for the year 1960 as shown by the certificate of the xxx xxx xxx
treasurer (Exh. "3"). The defendant may present to the Court
other land taxes receipts for the payment of taxes for this lot. 2. On September 22, 1934, Yap Pongco sold this land to
Francisco Militante as evidenced by a notarial deed (Exh. "J") (7) Those expressly prohibited by law.
which was registered in the Registry of Deeds on May 13,
9. The land claimed by the defendant as his own was 1940 (Exh. "J-1").
'ART. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire any
surveyed on June 6 and 7,1956, and a plan approved by
purchase, even at a public auction, either in person of through
Director of Land on November 15, 1956 was issued,
3. That plaintiff suffered damages alleged in his complaint. the mediation of another: .
identified as Psu 155241 (Exh. "5").
C. Defendants, on the other hand will prove by competent xxx xxx xxx
10. On April 22, 1960, the plaintiff filed forcible Entry and
Detainer case against Isaias Batiller in the Justice of the evidence during the trial of this case the following facts:
Peace Court of Barotac Viejo Province of Iloilo (Exh. "4") to (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior
which the defendant Isaias Batiller riled his answer on August and inferior courts, and other officers and employees
1. That lot No. 2 of the Psu-1552 it (Exh. '5') was originally
29, 1960 (Exh. "4-A"). The Municipal Court of Barotac Viejo connected with the administration of justice, the property and
owned and possessed by Felipe Batiller, grandfather of the
after trial, decided the case on May 10, 1961 in favor of the rights of in litigation or levied upon an execution before the
defendant Basilio Batiller, on the death of the former in 1920,
defendant and against the plaintiff (Exh. "4-B"). The court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
as his sole heir. Isaias Batiller succeeded his father , Basilio
plaintiff appealed from the decision of the Municipal Court of respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of
Batiller, in the ownership and possession of the land in the
Barotac Viejo which was docketed in this Court as Civil Case acquiring an assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with
year 1930, and since then up to the present, the land remains
No. 5750 on June 3, 1961, to which the defendant, Isaias respect to the property and rights which may be the object of
in the possession of the defendant, his possession being
Batiller, on June 13, 1961 filed his answer (Exh. "4-C"). any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
actual, open, public, peaceful and continuous in the concept
And this Court after the trial. decided the case on November profession.'
of an owner, exclusive of any other rights and adverse to all
26, 1964, in favor of the defendant, Isaias Batiller and against
other claimants.
the plaintiff (Exh. "4-D").
defendant claims that plaintiff could not have acquired any
2. That the alleged predecessors in interest of the plaintiff interest in the property in dispute as the contract he (plaintiff)
(NOTE: As per Exh. 4-B, which is the Iloilo court of first had with Francisco Militante was inexistent and void. (See pp.
have never been in the actual possession of the land and that
instance decision of 26 November 1964 dismissing plaintiff's 22-31, Record on Appeal). Plaintiff strongly opposed
they never had any title thereto.
therein complaint for ejectment against defendant, the iloilo defendant's motion to dismiss claiming that defendant can not
court expressly found "that plaintiff's complaint is unjustified, invoke Articles 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code as Article
intended to harass the defendant" and "that the defendant, 3. That Lot No. 2, Psu 155241, the subject of Free Patent 1422 of the same Code provides that 'The defense of illegality
Isaias Batiller, has a better right to possess the land in application of the defendant has been approved. of contracts is not available to third persons whose interests
question described in Psu 155241 (Exh. "3"), Isaias Batiller are not directly affected' (See pp. 32-35 Record on Appeal).
having been in the actual physical possession thereof under
a claim of title many years before Francisco Militante sold the 4. The damages suffered by the defendant, as alleged in his
counterclaim."'1
On October 18, 1965, the lower court issued an order relevant facts and submitted their respective documentary possession thereof with damages was bereft of any factual or
disclaiming plaintiffs complaint (pp. 42-49, Record on exhibits as referred to in the pre-trial order, supra, practically
2
legal basis.
Appeal.) In the aforesaid order of dismissal the lower court amounted to a fulldress trial which placed on record all the
practically agreed with defendant's contention that the facts and exhibits necessary for adjudication of the case.
contract (Exh. A) between plaintiff and Francism Militante was 2. No error could be attributed either to the lower court's
null and void. In due season plaintiff filed a motion for holding that the purchase by a lawyer of the property in
reconsideration (pp. 50-56 Record on Appeal) which was The three points on which plaintiff reserved the presentation litigation from his client is categorically prohibited by Article
denied by the lower court on January 14, 1966 (p. 57, Record of evidence at the-trial dealing with the source of the alleged 1491, paragraph (5) of the Philippine Civil Code,
on Appeal). right and title of Francisco Militante's reproduced supra; and that consequently, plaintiff's purchase
6
'1. The lower court erred in holding that the contract of sale
between the plaintiff-appellant and his father-in-law, The 1911 case of Wolfson vs. Estate of Martinez relied upon
7
Francisco Militante, Sr., now deceased, of the property The four points on which defendant on his part reserved the by plaintiff as holding that a sale of property in litigation to the
covered by Plan Psu-99791, (Exh. "A") was void, not voidable presentation of evidence at the trial dealing with his and his party litigant's lawyer "is not void but voidable at the election
because it was made when plaintiff-appellant was the counsel ancestors' continuous, open, public and peaceful possession of the vendor" was correctly held by the lower court to have
of the latter in the Land Registration case. in the concept of owner of the land and the Director of Lands' been superseded by the later 1929 case of Director of Lands
approval of his survey plan thereof, supra, are likewise
5
vs. Abagat. In this later case of Abagat, the Court expressly
8
already duly established facts of record, in the land cited two antecedent cases involving the same transaction of
'2. The lower court erred in holding that the defendant-
registration case as well as in the ejectment case wherein the purchase of property in litigation by the lawyer which was
appellee is an interested person to question the validity of the
Iloilo court of first instance recognized the superiority of expressly declared invalid under Article 1459 of the Civil
contract of sale between plaintiff-appellant and the deceased,
defendant's right to the land as against plaintiff. Code of Spain (of which Article 1491 of our Civil Code of the
Francisco Militante, Sr.
Philippines is the counterpart) upon challenge thereof not by
the vendor-client but by the adverse parties against whom the
No error was therefore committed by the lower court in lawyer was to enforce his rights as vendee thus acquired.
'3. The lower court erred in entertaining the motion to dismiss
dismissing plaintiff's complaint upon defendant's motion after
of the defendant-appellee after he had already filed his
the pre-trial.
answer, and after the termination of the pre-trial, when the
These two antecedent cases thus cited in Abagat clearly
said motion to dismiss raised a collateral question.
superseded (without so expressly stating the previous ruling
1. The stipulated facts and exhibits of record indisputably in Wolfson:
established plaintiff's lack of cause of action and justified the
'4. The lower court erred in dismissing the complaint of the
outright dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff's claim of
plaintiff-appellant.'
ownership to the land in question was predicated on the sale
thereof for P2,000.00 made in 1956 by his father-in- law,
The appellate court concluded that plaintiffs "assignment of Francisco Militante, in his favor, at a time when Militante's
errors gives rise to two (2) legal posers — (1) whether or not application for registration thereof had already
the contract of sale between appellant and his father-in-law, been dismissed by the Iloilo land registration court and was
the late Francisco Militante over the property subject of Plan pending appeal in the Court of Appeals.
Psu-99791 was void because it was made when plaintiff was
counsel of his father-in-law in a land registration case
With the Court of Appeals' 1958 final judgment affirming
involving the property in dispute; and (2) whether or not the
the dismissal of Militante's application for registration, the lack
lower court was correct in entertaining defendant-appellee's
of any rightful claim or title of Militante to the land was
motion to dismiss after the latter had already filed his answer
conclusively and decisively judicially determined. Hence,
and after he (defendant) and plaintiff-appellant had agreed on
there was no right or title to the land that could be transferred
some matters in a pre-trial conference. Hence, its elevation of
or sold by Militante's purported sale in 1956 in favor of
the appeal to this Court as involving pure questions of law.
plaintiff.
November, 1909, leaving a large number of collateral heirs reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the
but no descendants. Litigation between the surviving property, from acquiring such property in their trust or control
husband, Juan Soriano, and the heirs of Vicenta immediately either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial The criterion of nullity of such prohibited contracts under
arose, and the herein appellant Sisenando Palarca acted as auction," as follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3) Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code (Article 1491 of our
Soriano's lawyer. On May 2, 1918, Soriano executed a deed administrators; (4) public officers and employees; judicial Civil Code) as a matter of public order and policy as applied
for the aforesaid twelve parcels of land in favor of Sisenando officers and employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; by the Supreme Court of Spain to administrators and agents
Palarca and on the following day, May 3, 1918, Palarca filed and (6) others especially disqualified by law. in its above cited decision should certainly apply with greater
an application for the registration of the land in the reason to judges, judicial officers, fiscals and lawyers under
deed. After hearing, the Court of First Instance declared that paragraph 5 of the codal article.
the deed was invalid by virtue of the provisions of article 1459 In Wolfson which involved the sale and assignment of a
of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers and solicitors from money judgment by the client to the lawyer, Wolfson, whose
right to so purchase the judgment was being challenged by Citing the same decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain,
purchasing property rights involved in any litigation in which
the judgment debtor, the Court, through Justice Moreland, Gullon Ballesteros, his "Curso de Derecho Civil, (Contratos
they take part by virtue of their profession. The application for
then expressly reserved decision on "whether or not the Especiales)" (Madrid, 1968) p. 18, affirms that, with respect to
registration was consequently denied, and upon appeal by
judgment in question actually falls within the prohibition of the Article 1459, Spanish Civil Code:.
Palarca to the Supreme Court, the judgement of the lower
court was affirmed by a decision promulgated November article" and held only that the sale's "voidability can not be
16,1925. (G.R. No. 24329, Palarca vs. Director of Lands, not asserted by one not a party to the transaction or his
Que caracter tendra la compra que se realice por estas
reported.) representative," citing from Manresa that "(C)onsidering the
10
In the meantime cadastral case No. 30 of the Province of acts done contrary to the express prohibition of the statute.
Tarlac was instituted, and on August 21, 1923, Eleuteria Now then: As the code does not recognize such nullity by the
Macaraeg, as administratrix of the estate of Vicente mere operation of law, the nullity of the acts hereinbefore Perez Gonzales in such view, stating that "Dado el caracter
Macaraeg, filed claims for the parcels in question. referred to must be asserted by the person having the prohibitivo delprecepto, la consequencia de la infraccion es la
Buenaventura Lavitoria administrator of the estate of Juan necessary legal capacity to do so and decreed by a nulidad radical y ex lege."
15
Judge Carballo presiding, rendered judgment in favor of Castan, quoting Manresa's own observation that.
Palarea and ordered the registration of the land in his
name. Upon appeal to this court by the administration of the The reason thus given by Manresa in considering such
estates of Juan Soriano and Vicente Macaraeg, the judgment prohibited acquisitions under Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil "El fundamento do esta prohibicion es clarisimo. No sa trata
of the court below was reversed and the land adjudicated to Code as merely voidable at the instance and option of the con este precepto tan solo de guitar la ocasion al fraude;
the two estates as conjugal property of the deceased vendor and not void — "that the Code does not recognize persiguese, ademasel proposito de rodear a las personas
spouses. (G.R. No. 28226, Director of Lands vs. Abagat, such nullity de pleno derecho" — is no longer true and que intervienen en la administrcionde justicia de todos los
promulgated May 21, 1928, not reported.) 9
applicable to our own Philippine Civil Code retigios que necesitan pora ejercer su ministerio librandolos
which does recognize the absolute nullity of contracts "whose de toda suspecha, que aunque fuere in fundada, redundura
cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good endescredito de la institucion." arrives at the contrary and
16
In the very case of Abagat itself, the Court, again affirming customs, public order or public policy" or which are now accepted view that "Puede considerace en nuestro
the invalidity and nullity of the lawyer's purchase of the land in "expressly prohibited or declared void by law" and declares derecho inexistente 'o radicalmente nulo el contrato en los
litigation from his client, ordered the issuance of a writ of such contracts "inexistent and void from the beginning." 12
siguentes cases: a) ...; b) cuando el contrato se ha
possession for the return of the land by the lawyer to the celebrado en violacion de una prescripcion 'o prohibicion
adverse parties without reimbursement of the price paid by legal, fundada sobre motivos de orden publico (hipotesis del
him and other expenses, and ruled that "the appellant Palarca The Supreme Court of Spain and modern authors have art. 4 del codigo) ..."
17
is a lawyer and is presumed to know the law. He must, likewise veered from Manresa's view of the Spanish codal
therefore, from the beginning, have been well aware of the provision itself. In its sentencia of 11 June 1966, the Supreme
defect in his title and is, consequently, a possessor in bad Court of Spain ruled that the prohibition of Article 1459 of the It is noteworthy that Caltan's rationale for his conclusion that
faith." Spanish Civil Code is based on public policy, that violation of fundamental consideration of public policy render void and
the prohibition contract cannot be validated by confirmation or inexistent such expressly prohibited purchase (e.g. by public
ratification, holding that: officers and employees of government property intrusted to
As already stated, Wolfson and Abagat were decided with them and by justices, judges, fiscals and lawyers of property
relation to Article 1459 of the Civil Code of Spain then and rights in litigation and submitted to or handled by them,
adopted here, until it was superseded on August 30, 1950 by ... la prohibicion que el articulo 1459 del C.C. establece under Article 1491, paragraphs (4) and (5) of our Civil Code)
the Civil Code of the Philippines whose counterpart provision respecto a los administradores y apoderados, la cual tiene has been adopted in a new article of our Civil Code, viz,
is Article 1491. conforme a la doctrina de esta Sala, contendia entre otras, en Article 1409 declaring such prohibited contracts as "inexistent
S. de 27-5-1959, un fundamento de orden moral lugar la and void from the beginning." 18