FABILLO V.

IAC
Juliana Fabillo, in her last will and testament dated Aug. 16, 1957, bequeathed to her brother,Florencio,
a house and lot in San Salvador, Palo, Leyte and to his husband Gregorio D. Brioso a piece of land in
Pugahanay, Palo, Leyte.

After Justinas death, Florencio filed a petition for the probate of said will.
Florencio sought the assistance of Atty. Alfredo M. Murillo in recovering the San Salvador property.
Florencio and Murillo entered into a contract, stipulating therein that Murillo shall represent Florencio
in the conclusion of the two cases, and in consideration of Murillos legal services, he shall be paid, in
case of success 40% of what he may acquire from the favorable judgment.
In case that the properties are sold, mortgaged or leased, Murillo shall be entitled to 40% of the
purchase price, proceeds of the mortgage, or rentals, respectively.
Pursuant to the said contract, Murillo filed a civil case against Gregorio D. Brioso to recover the
SanSalvador property. However, the case was terminated when the parties entered into a compromise
agreement declaring Florencio as the lawful owner of not only the San Salvador property but also of the
parcel of land located at Pugahanay.
As a result, Murillo proceeded to implement the contract of services between him and Florencio by
taking possession and exercising rights of ownership over 40% of said properties.
In 1966, Florencio claimed exclusive right of ownership over the two properties and refused to give to
Murillo his share of the properties.
Murillo filed in the CFI a complaint for ownership of the parcel of land.

ISSUE: WON THE CONTRACT OF SERVICES VIOLATED THE PROVISION OF ART. 1491, NCC.

HELD:NO! The contract of services did not violate Art. 1491, NCC.
The said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes place during the
pendency of the litigation involving the clients property.
Thus, the contract between the a lawyer and a client stipulating a contingent fee is not covered by said
prohibition under Art. 1491(5), CC because the payment of said fee is not made during the pendency of
the litigation but only after the judgment was rendered final.
As long as the lawyer did not exert undue influence on his client, that no fraud is committed or
implication applied, or that the compensation is clearly not excessive as to amount to extortion, a
contract for contingent fee is valid and enforceable.
However, the Court disagrees that the contingent fee stipulated by the parties is 40% of the properties
subject of the litigation.
A careful scrutiny of the contract shows that the parties intended 40% of the value
of the properties as Murillos contingent fee.
This is borne out by the stipulation that in case of success of any or both cases, Murillo shall be paid
the sum equivalent to 40% of whatever benefit Fabillo would derive from favorable judgments.
Moreover, the herein contract was vague with respect to a situation wherein the properties are neither
sold, mortgaged nor leased because Murillo is allowed to have the option of occupying or leasing to
any interested party 40% of the house and lot.
Had the parties intended that Murillo should be the lawful owner of 40% of the properties, it would
have been stipulated in the contract considering that the Fabillos would part with actual portions of
their properties and cede the same to Murillo.
The ambiguity of said provision should be resolved against Murillo as it was him who drafted the
contract.











SPOUSES SALERA, VS. SPOUSES RODAJE

G.R. No. 135900

August 17, 2007

Facts:
On May 7, 1993, spouses Avelino and Exaltacion Salera, now petitioners, filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 11, Calubian, Leyte, a complaint for quieting of title, docketed as Civil Case No. CN-
27, against spouses Celedonio and Policronia Rodaje, herein respondents. Petitioners alleged that they
are the absolute owners of a parcel of land situated at Basud, San Isidro, Leyte with an area of 448.98
square meters, more or less. They acquired the property from the heirs of Brigido Tonacao as shown by
a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on June 23, 1986. They had the document registered in the Registry
of Deeds of Iloilo on July 1, 1986. When they asked the Provincial Assessor to declare the property
under their names for taxation purposes, they found that Tax Declaration No. 2994 (R-5) in the name of
Brigido was already cancelled and another one, Tax Declaration No. 2408, was issued in the names of
respondents. Petitioners further alleged that they have been in possession of the property and the
house they built thereon because they had paid the purchase price even before the execution of the
deed of sale.

In their answer to the complaint, respondents claimed that they are the absolute owners of the same
property. They acquired it from Catalino Tonacao, the father of Brigido, in a Deed of Absolute Sale
dated June 6, 1986. The sale was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Leyte on June 10, 1986 and Tax
Declaration No. 2408 was issued in their names. Prior thereto, or on January 11, 1984, they had a
verbal contract of sale with Catalino. They paid him P1,000.00 as downpayment. They agreed that the
balance of P4,000.00 shall be paid upon execution of the deed of sale. Since then, they have been
exercising their right of ownership over the property and the building constructed thereon peacefully,
publicly, adversely and continuously. Apart from being the first registrants, they are buyers in good
faith.

On July 17, 1995, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring petitioners the rightful and legal owners of the
property, declaring as null and void the sale made by Catalino Tonacao to herein defendants for lack of
capacity to sell;

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated October 9, 1998, reversed and set aside the trial
courts Decision, declaring respondents the true and lawful owners of the property in dispute, The Court
of Appeals, in upholding the validity of the sale in favor of respondents, relied on Article 1544 of the Civil
Code on double sale.

Issue:
Which of the two contracts of sale is valid?

Held:
The contract of sale between Brigido Tonacao and Spouses Salera is valid. While tax declarations are not
conclusive proofs of ownership, however, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner,
for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least
constructive possession. Hence, as between Brigido and Catalino, the former had better right to the
property. In other words, Catalino, not being the owner or possessor, could not validly sell the lot to
respondents. The CA erred in applying Article 1544. Article 1544 of the Civil Code contemplates a case of
double sale or multiple sales by a single vendor. More specifically, it covers a situation where a single
vendor sold one and the same immovable property to two or more buyers. It cannot be invoked where
the two different contracts of sale are made by two different persons, one of them not being the owner
of the property sold. In the instant case, the property was sold by two different vendors to different
purchasers. The first sale was between Catalino and herein respondents, while the second was between
Brigidos heirs and herein petitioners.