CORNELIA MATABUENA vs.

PETRONILA CERVANTES
L-2877 (38 SCRA 284)
March 31, 1971

FACTS:
In 1956, herein appellants brother Felix Matabuena donated a piece of lot to his common-law spouse,
herein appellee Petronila Cervantes. Felix and Petronila got married only in 1962 or six years after the deed of
donation was executed. Five months later, or September 13, 1962, Felix died. Thereafter, appellant Cornelia
Matabuena, by reason of being the only sister and nearest collateral relative of the deceased, filed a claim over the
property, by virtue of a an affidavit of self-adjudication executed by her in 1962, had the land declared in her name
and paid the estate and inheritance taxes thereon. The lower court of Sorsogon declared that the donation was
valid inasmuch as it was made at the time when Felix and Petronila were not yet spouses, rendering Article 133 of
the Civil Code inapplicable.

ISSUE: Whether or not the ban on donation between spouses during a marriage applies to a common-law
relationship.

HELD:
While Article 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a donation between the spouses during marriage,
policy consideration of the most exigent character as well as the dictates of morality requires that the same
prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship.
As stated in Buenaventura vs. Bautista (50 OG 3679, 1954), if the policy of the law is to prohibit donations
in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and improper pressure and influence
upon the donor, then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together as
husband and wife without the benefit of nuptials.
The lack of validity of the donation by the deceased to appellee does not necessarily result in appellant
having exclusive right to the disputed property. As a widow, Cervantes is entitled to one-half of the inheritance,
and the surviving sister to the other half.
Article 1001, Civil Code: Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower,
the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other
half.

RUBIAS vs. BATILLER

(51 SCRA 120); May 29, 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. (Pls. read the full text of the case to be guided on this portion.)

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

RULING: 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.

Macariola Vs. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77

Facts:
On June 8, 1963, respondent Judge Elias Asuncion rendered a decision in Civil Case 3010 final for lack of an appeal.

On October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion. The project of partition of lots was
not signed by the parties themselves but only by the respective counsel of plaintiffs and petitioner Bernardita R.
Macariola. The Judge approved it in his order dated October 23, 1963.
One of the lots in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was subdivided into 5 lots denominated as Lot 1184
A E. Dr. Arcadio Galapon bought Lot 1184-E on July 31, 1964, who was issued transfer of certificate of Title No,
2338 of the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City. On March 6, 1965, Galapon sold a portion of the lot to Judge
Asuncion and his wife.

On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interest inn Lot 1184-E to
the Traders Manufacturing & Fishing Industries Inc. Judge Asuncion was the President and his wife Victoria was the
Secretary. The Asuncions and Galapons were also the stockholder of the corporation.

Respondent Macariola charged Judge Asuncion with "Acts unbecoming a Judge" for violating the following
provisions: Article 1491, par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Article 14, par. 1 & 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par H
of RA 3019 also known as the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practice Act., Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and
Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

On November 2, 1970 a certain Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno dismissed the complaints filed against Asuncion.

Issue:
Whether or Not the respondent Judge violated the mentioned provisions.

Ruling:
No. Judge Asuncion did not violate the mentioned provisions constituting of "Acts unbecoming a Judge" but was
reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities.

Respondent Judge did not buy the lot 1184-E directly on the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Galapon
who earlier purchased the lot from 3 of the plaintiffs. When the Asuncion bought the lot on March 6, 1965 from Dr.
Galapon after the finality of the decision which he rendered on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case No 3010 and his two
orders dated October and November, 1963. The said property was no longer the subject of litigation.

In the case at bar, Article 14 of Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the
respondent. Upon the sovereignty from the Spain to the US and to the Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of this
Code of Commerce, which sourced from the Spanish Code of Commerce, appears to have been abrogated because
whenever there is a change in the sovereignty, political laws of the former sovereign are automatically abrogated,
unless they are reenacted by Affirmative Act of the New Sovereign.