RUBIAS v.

BATILLER
FACTS:
Militante claimed ownership over a parcel of land and applied for the registration of the same w/ the CFI;
his counsel was his son-in-law, Atty. Rubias. His claim was dismissed by the trial court, thus he appealed.
Pending appeal, he sold the lot to Atty. Rubias for P 2,000.00. Batiller, on the other hand, claimed to
have inherited the same lot from his ancestors who have been in open, public, peaceful, and actual
possession thereof under claim of title. Atty. Rubias filed an ejectment suit against Batiller who assailed
the validity of the sale to Rubias.

ISSUE:
W/N the sale to Atty. Rubias is valid

HELD:
Given the dismissal of Militantes application, he had thus no right over the said land that he may have
validly transferred to Atty. Rubias. Nevertheless, even assuming he had title thereto, the sale of the lot
to Atty. Rubias would be null and void for being expressly prohibited by the Civil Code. Lawyers cannot
acquire by purchase the property or rights under litigation over w/c they take part by virtue of their
profession. The same rule applies to judges, clerks of court, and other judicial officers w/ respect to the
same.

The purchase in violation of the above provision is not merely voidable as Atty. Rubias contends; it is
void and inexistent from the very beginning. The right to set up the defense of its illegality cannot be
waived and, unlike cases involving agents, guardians, or administrators w/ respect to the properties
under their charge, it is not susceptible to compromise or ratification. It is likewise contrary to pubic
policy.