CUI VS CUI (tan

)
FACTS: Jesus and Antonio are the legitimate children of Don Mariano Cui and
Doña Antonia Perales who died intestate in1939. Jesus alleged that during the
marriage of Don Mariano and Dona Antonia, their parents acquired certain
properties in the City of Cebu, namely, Lots Nos. 2312, 2313 and 2319.
Upon the death of their mother, the properties were placed under the
administration of their dad.that while the latter was 84 years of age, Antonio by
means of deceit, secured the transfer to themselves the said lots without any
pecuniary consideration; that in the deed of sale executed on March 8, 1946,
Rosario Cui appeared as one of the vendees, but on learning of this fact she
subsequently renounced her rights under the sale and returned her portion to
Don Mariano Cui by executing a deed of resale in his favor on October 11, 1946;
that defendants, fraudulently and with the desire of enriching themselves
unjustly at the expense of their
Sales | Case Digests| 65
father, Don Mariano Cui, and of their brothers and co- heirs,secured a loan of
P130,000 from the Rehabilitation properties, and with the loan thus obtained,
defendants constructed thereon an apartment building of strong materials
consisting of 14 doors, valued at approximately P130,000 and another building
on the same parcels of land, which buildings were leased to some Chinese
commercial firms a monthly rental of P7,600, which defendants have collected
and will continue to collect to the prejudice of the plaintiffs;Jesus alleged that the
sale should be invalidated so far as the portion of the property sold to Antonio
Cui is concerned, for the reason that when that sale was effected, Antonio was
then acting as the agent or administrator of the properties of Don Mariano
Cui.Jesus lays stress on the power of attorney Exhibit L which was executed by
Don Mariano in favor of Antonio Cui on March 2,1946, wherein the former has
constituted the latter as his "true and lawful attorney" to perform in his name
and that of the intestate heirs of Doña Antonia Perales.
ISSUE: WON the sale of the property to Antonio was valid.
HELD: YES. While under article 1459 of the old Civil Code an agent or
administrator is disqualified from purchasing property in his hands for sale or
management, and, in this case, the property in question was sold to Antonio Cui
while he was already the agent or administrator of the properties of Don Mariano
Cui, we however believe that this question cannot now be raised or invoked.
The prohibition of the law is contained in article 1459 of the old Civil Code, but
this prohibition has already been removed.
Under the provisions of article 1491, section 2, of the new Civil Code, an agent
may now buy property placed in his hands for sale or administration, provided
that the principal gives his consent thereto. While the new Code came intoeffect
only on August 30, 1950, however, since this is a right that is declared for the
first time, the same may be given retroactive effect if no vested or acquired right
is impaired (Article 2253, new Civil Code). During the lifetime Don Mariano,and
particularly on March 8, 1946, the herein appellants could not claim any vested
or acquired right in these properties, for,as heirs, the most they had was a mere

pet contended that a contract for a contingent fee violates Article 1491 because it involves an assignment of a property subject of litigation. Attorneys Director of Lands vs Ababa (remoroza) FACTS: Adverse claimant Atty. adverse claimant immediately took steps to protect his interest by filing a motion to annotate his attorney’s lien and by notifying the prospective buyers of his claim over the ½ portion of the parcels of land. FOR the prohibition to operate.expectancy. The motion was granted. Hence. therefore. ISSUE: WON the contract for a contingent fee as basis of the interest of Atty. The case having been resolved and title having been issued to petitioner. B. RTC resolved in favor of adverse claimant. invoke now this practical and liberal provision of our new Civil Code even if the sale had taken place before its effectivity. On appeal. Fernandez. the payment of . Maximo Abarquez. Alberto B. is contingent upon the success of the appeal. the attorney's fees of Atty. This adverse claim became the subject of cancellation proceedings filed by petitioner spouses. adverse claimant waited for petitioner to comply with his obligation under the document executed by him b u delivering the ½ portion of the said parcels of land. The contention is without merit. In the instant case. Litigating as a pauper in the lower court and engaging the services of his lawyer on a contingent basis. The annotation of adverse claim appeared on the new TCT. Article 1491 prohibits only the sale or assignmenet between the lawyer and his client of property which is the subject of litigation. liable to compensate his lawyer whom he also retained for his appeal executed a document whereby he obliged himself to give to his lawyer one-half (1/2) of whatever he might recover from the appeal. Fernandez is prohibited by Article 1491 of the Civil code RULING: NO. Pet refused to comply with his obligation and instead offered to sell the whole parcels of land to spouse Larrazabal. The prohibition does not apply to "cases where after completion of litigation the lawyer accepts on account of his fee. an interest the assets realized by the litigation A contract for a contingent fee is not covered by Article 1491 because the transfer or assignment of the property in litigation takes effect only after the finality of a favorable judgment. The property in question was actually the share of the petitioner in Lots 5600 and 5602. We may. which were part of the estate of his deceased parents and which were partitioned the heirs which included petitioner and his sister. Fernandez was retained as counsel by petitioner. Then. petitioner. consisting of one-half (1/2) of whatever Maximo Abarquez might recover from his share in the lots in question. the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. for the annulment of a contract of sale with right of repurchase and for the recovery of the land which was the subject matter thereof.

Isaias Batiller. vs. Exh. 1952. N o . 13497-R.000. Record on Appeal). 3.. Barotac Viejo. The appellant. surveyed under Psu 99791 . During the pre-trial conference. a lawyer.the attorney's fees. defendant-appellee. "A-1").. whereby he was issued a plan Psu99791 (Exhibit "B"). that is.RUBIAS. as well as the sum of P500. 13609 on July 11. plaintiff-appellant. 1960 (Exh.) 2. for the sum of P2. The sale was duly recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province of Iloilo as Entry No. ISAIAS BATILLER. (NOTE: As per deed of sale.00 for attorney's fees. A. Iloilo which he bought from his father-in-law. D o min g o R u bi a s t h e la n d technically described in psu. DOMINGO D.695. and after the trial this c o u r t dis mis s e d t h e a p p lic a tio n f o r r e gis t r a tio n . the transfer or assignment of one-half (1/2) of the property in litigation will take place only if the appeal prospers.. . The record was reconstituted on the Court of the First Instance of Iloilo and docketed as Land Case No. (pp. the record of the case was lost before it was heard. "A"). during the war with Japan...9072 hectares . Francisco Militante. 5 4 8 5 2 .000. (and) subject to the exclusions made by me. Plaintiff prayed also for damages and attorneys fees. Rubias. his son-in-law.. 13497-R and more particularly on June 18. Before the war with Japan.claim defendant claims the complaint of the plaintiff does not state a cause of action. However. "B") opposed by the Director of Lands. (The land claimed contained an area of 171:3561 hectares. plaintiff Domingo D. under . 1934. the contract for a contingent fee is not covered by Article 1491. The Court of First Instance heard the land registration case on November 14. Francisco Militante in 1956 against its present occupant defendant. Consequently. so after the war Francisco Militante petitioned this court to reconstitute the record of the case. 1964.99791 (Exh. the parties have agreed that the following facts are attendant in this case and that they will no Sales | Case Digests| 66 longer introduced any evidence. 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. appealed from the decision of this Court to the Court of Appeals where the case was docketed as CA-GR No. That Francisco Militante claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in the Barrio of General Luna. testimonial or documentary to prove them: 1. which he caused to be surveyed on July 18-31. Francisco Militante sold to the plain tif f. who illegally entered said portions of the lot on two occasions — in 1945 and in 1959. 1956. (Pinili) Facts: On August 31. filed a suit to recover the ownership and possession of certain portions of lot under Psu-99791 located in Barrio General Luna. the Director of Forestry and other oppositors . municipality of Barotac Viejo province of Iloilo. what Militante purportedly sold to plaintiff-appellant. 1-7.00..00 was "a parcel of untitled land having an area Of 144. the truth of the matter being that he and his predecessors-in-interest have always been in actual. In his answer with counter. the trasnfer actually takes effect after the finality of a favorable judgment rendered on appeal and not during the pendency of the litigation involving the property in question. Therefore. 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. R . GLRO R e c . Pending the disposal of the appeal in CA-GR No.

(case) CA .L. 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.i3497. again affirming the invalidity and nullity of the lawyer's purchase of the land in litigation from his client. 1409. and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice. by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property. 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. RTC and CA dismissed the application of Registration of Francisco Militante. R . No. and ruled that "the appellant Palarca is a lawyer and is presumed to know the law. xxx xxx xxx (5) Justices. a possessor in bad faith. Land Registration Case No. this prohibition includes the act of acquiring an assignment and shall apply to lawyers ." as follows: (1) guardians. The sale is void. paragraph (5) of the Philippine Civil Code. therefore. G. his client's claim to the property was defeated and rejected) was void and could produce no legal effect. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived. (4) public officers and employees.' 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. and (6) others especially disqualified by law. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: xxx xxx xxx (7) Those expressly prohibited by law. Indeed.695. the nullity of such prohibited contracts is definite and permanent and cannot be cured by ratification. the Court. prosecuting attorneys. The public interest and public policy remain paramount and do not permit of compromise or ratification. Wolfson and Abagat were decided with relation to Article 1459 of the Civil Code of Spain then adopted here. and lawyers. Issue: WON the sale of the land between Franicisco Militante and Domingo Rubias was null and void in accordance with Article 1409 and 1491. consequently." In the very case of Abagat itself. either in person of through the mediation of another: . 6 and that consequently. reproduced supra . by virtue of Article 1409. Court of First Instance of the province of Iloilo. have been well aware of the defect in his title and is. Held. prosecuting attorneys. from acquiring such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial auction. 1950 by the Civil Code of the Philippines whose counterpart provision is Article 1491.O. clerks of superior and inferior courts. the . from the beginning. 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. 'Art. He must. even at a public auction. The following persons cannot acquire any purchase. 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. plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation from his client (assuming that his client could sell the same since as already shown above. Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code) prohibits in its six paragraphs certain persons. In his aspect. 54852 . 'ART. judicial officers and employees. (3) administrators. judges." As already stated. until it was superseded on August 30. (2) agents.R. 1491.

Serapia was willing to relinquish ownership if the Valencias could show documents evidencing ownership. Eduardo Jovellanos to settle the land dispute between Serapia Raymundo (Serapia in short) another heir of Pedro Raymundo. Thus. the transferor can recover it by the accion reinvindicatoria . Paulino . agents and administrators (Article 1491. Thus. a mortgagee can allege the inexistence of a prior encumbrance. The causes of nullity which have ceased to exist cannot impair the validity of the new contract." 19 As applied to the case at bar. The ratification or second contract would then be v ali d f r o m it s e x e c u tio n . and the Valencia spouses since both were relatives and distant kin of Atty. in which cases its validity shall be determined only by the circumstances at the time the execution of such new contract.permanent disqualification of public and judicial officers and lawyers grounded on p u blic p oli c y differs from the first three cases of guardians. or the service which was impossible may have become possible. Administrative Cases No . who cannot enforce the contract. where they built their residential house. complainant Paulino Valencia (Paulino in short) and his wife Romana allegedly bought a parcel of land. and any prossessor may refuse to deliver it to the transferee. now an MCTC Judge) for grave malpractice and misconduct in the exercise of their legal profession committed in the following manner: 1. Paulino exhibited a deed of sale written in the Ilocano dialect. as follows: Parties Affected. from a certain Serapia Raymundo. 1302 and 1391 . Sales | Case Digests| 67 The order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed. Cabanting and Eduardo Jovellanos (the last named. as to whose transactions it had been opined that they may be "ratified" by means of and in "the form of a new contact . 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. 1968. Valencia vs. the object which was illegal at the time of the first contract. they failed to register the sale or secure a transfer certificate of title in their names. However. Serapia claimed that the deed covered a different property. a conference was held in the house of Atty. if there has been a void transfer of property. Sometime in December. a debtor can assert the nullity of an assignment of credit as a defense to an action by the assignee. an heir of Pedro Raymundo the original owner. In 1933. however. 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. — Any person may invoke the in existence of the contract whenever juridical effects founded thereon are asserted against him. Civil Code). Creditors may attach property of the debtor which has been alienated by the latter under a void contract. it does not retroact to the date of the first contract. Jovellanos. Arsenio Fer. may have already become lawful at the time of the ratification or second contract. with costs in all instances against plaintiff-appellant. or the intention which could not be ascertained may have been clarified by the parties. However. since its juridical effects and plaintiff's alleged cause of action founded thereon were being asserted against defendantappellant. Cabanting (Miles) FACTS: These consolidated administrative cases seek to disbar respondents Dionisio Antiniw.

either in person or through the mediation of another: xxx xxx xxx (5) . RULING: Under Article 1491 of the New Civil Code: The following persons cannot acquire by purchase. 1973. B) was executed purporting to be a sale of the questioned lot. assisted by Atty. (Beltran vs. Dionisio Antiniw. 1973. (Report. Branch V. (Report of Investigating Judge Catalino Castaneda. on April 25. Cabanting on the ground that said counsel allegedly violated Article 1491 of the New Civil Code as well as Article II of the Canons of Professional Ethics. (Annex "A" of Administrative Case No. . A "Compraventa Definitiva" (Exh. Serapia sold 40 square meters of the litigated lot to Atty.. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. p. 1969 Serapia. Defendant. 70 Phil. on March 9. Plaintiff. Cabanting purchased the subject property in violation of Art. prohibiting the purchase of property under litigation by a counsel ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. 1491 of the New Civil Code. Arsenio Fer. 1302).00 to pay the person who would falsify the signature of the alleged vendor (Complaint. under Rule 65. Serapia Raymundo. pp. even at a public of judicial auction. thereafter. It is intended to curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client. Cabanting. On March 4. 1974. 14) Paulino. Fernandez. Greed may get the better of the sentiments of loyalty and disinterestedness. 1302) against Atty. 1973. While the petition was pending. Atty. The lower court expressed the belief that the said document is not authentic. 21-22). Antiniw advised them to present a notarized deed of sale in lieu of the private document written in Ilocano. 1973. a writ of execution was issued.G. 78) and is a ground for suspension. Jr. Cabanting. p. the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. On January 22. p. Jovellanos and the remaining portion she sold to her counsel. with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they make take part by virtue of their profession. Atty. . 11). this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers. Summoned to plead in Civil Case No. issued an order of execution stating that "the decision in this case has already become final and executory" (Exhibits 3 and 3-A). Paulino filed a disbarment proceeding (docketed as Administrative Case No. Antiniw an amount of P200. versus Paulino Valencia. p.and Serapia were not able to settle their differences. . On March 20. Rollo . On March 14. rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff. the Valencias engaged the services of Atty. entitled "Serapia Raymundo. 7). filed a Petition for Certiorari . the trial court. Public policy prohibits the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved. 2. V-2170. 1973. 248). p. V-2170. For this purpose. Paulino gave Atty. On December 15. Any violation of this prohibition would constitute malpractice (In re: Attorney Melchor Ruste. Arsenio Fer." (Report. 40 O. with Preliminary Injunction before the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court failed to provide a workable solution concerning his house. filed a complaint against Paulino for the recovery of possession with damages.

. Hence. its ownership was consolidated in Daroy. Abecia was able to obtain new transfer certificates of title first: March 31. that the appellate court may either grant or dismiss the petition. Villanueva. July 15. A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court. In the case at bar. REGALADO DAROY vs. Nena Abecia . Daroy alleged that he entrusted the title to the land to Abecia as his counsel and allowed him to take possession of the land upon the latter’s request. Abecia maintained that Daroy indeed sold the land to Gangay and the latter sold it to Nena Abecia.To satisfy the judgment of an ejectment case won by plaintiff Daroy with his counsel Abecia. 1971 in the name of Jose Gangay by means of forged Deed of Sale and then April 17. 1973 Daroy already knew that title to the land had already been transferred in the name of Abecia’s wife. 1993 “ Re galado Daroy and his assignee Nena Abecia were . purchase of the property by Atty. ATTY ESTEBAN ABECIA October 26. Gangay in turn sold it to Nena Abecia (wife of Regalado Daroy). (Gan Tingco vs. while it is true that Atty. Arsenio Fer. . placed in actual possession of the parcel of land subject matter of the Deed of Conveyance and Possession . against Regalado Daroy and Nena Abecia for the demolition of her house. Daroy’s claim that he came to know of such transfer only in 1984 is thus belied. He cited the sheriff’s return. 81). 1491 and the Canons of Professional Ethics.precisely on the basis of “the right of Mrs. Pabinguit. Cabanting purchased the lot after finality of judgment . Cabanting in this case constitutes malpractice in violation of Art. 775). 40 Phil. in certiorari proceedings. . 88 SCRA 513. for purposes under Art. but also from the moment that it becomes subject to the judicial action of the judge. as assignee to do whatever she wants to do of the things she owns. one of the defendants in the ejectment case. who dismissed the complaint for grave coercion and malicious mischief filed by Gertrudes De Bajuyo. prohibiting the sale to the counsel concerned.” He also referred to the resolution of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Misamis Oriental. Clearly. . Adaba. sheriff sold at public auction on a parcel of land belonging to one of the defendants to Daroy as highest bidder. . 1971 . Upon failure of the defendants to redeem the land.Art. Hernandez vs. 1491. 35 Phil. Daroy claimed he discovered the fraud only in 1984. Sales | Case Digests| 68 dated August 6. Thus. applies only while the litigation is pending. 1998 – JAVIER March 25. in which it was stated that on August 4. Logic indicates. this malpractice is a ground for suspension. 1971 in a fictitious Deed of Sale. it is not safe to conclude. 1491 that the litigation has terminated when the judgment of the trial court become final while a certiorari connected therewith is still in progress. (Director of Lands vs. 1973. there was still a pending certiorari proceeding. 1993 – Commissioner found Abecia guilty of malpractice and recommended disbarment March 26 1994 – Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines approved the report but reduced the penalty to indefinite suspension HELD: It would appear that as early as August 4.

Of course. whose wife Anita is the sister of Mrs. The parties apparently had in mind Art. the sheriff’s return suggests that Daroy had agreed to such transfer. the latter could not acquire the land. to his attorney as long as the property was not the subject of the litigation. In Guevara v. Abecia. and others connected with the administration of justice are prohibited from acquiring “property or rights in litigation or levied upon in execution.” the prohibition with respect to attorneys in the case extends only to “property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. 1 4 9 1 . we held that the prohibition in Art. It appears further that as a consequence of the demolition of the former owner’s house..” The point is.. prosecuting attorneys. but that Daroy intended to convey the land ultimately to respondent Esteban Abecia appears to be the case. with grave coercion/malicious mischief in the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Misamis Oriental. 1491 of the Civil Code which provides. and then Gangay would sell the land to Mrs. complainant and Mrs. The aforementioned documents were attached to the answer of Esteban Abecia. judges. in pertinent parts. Abecia as Daroy’s assignee.Nor does it appear that the transfer was made without his knowledge and consent. that the said documents would be considered the evidence of Abecia. the references to Mrs. acquired by a client to satisfy a judgment in his favor. However. Calalang. what appears to have happened in this case is that the parties thought that because the land had been acquired by complainant at a public sale held in order to satisfy a judgment in his favor in a case in which respondent was complainant’s counsel. The sale of the land to Gangay may be fictitious and. Hence. Castillo. Nena Abecia. clerks of superior and inferior courts. 1491 does not apply to the sale of a parcel of land. Indeed. For indeed. and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice. the parties were mistaken in thinking that respondent could not validly acquire the land. they were not even mentioned in the report of the Commissioner who investigated the case. together with Deputy Sheriff Eufrosino P. the parties in this case thought the transfer of the land to respondent Abecia was prohibited and so they contrived a way whereby the land would be sold to Jose Gangay. on facts similar to those in this case. To the contrary. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase. therefore. this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by 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. prosecuting attorneys. . the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions. while judges.. either in person or through the mediation of another: . despite the parties’ agreement made at the hearing held. void. Abecia were charged. even at a public or judicial auction. as follows: A R T . (5) Justices.

o Respondent argues that he did not violate Article 1491 of the Civil Code because when he demanded the delivery of the 1.  On July 18. respondent also threatened to file a case in court if the complainant would not confer with him and settle the matter within 30 days.000 sq.000 sq. o He claims that his acceptance and appearance fees are reasonable because a Makati based legal practitioner. In the instant case. of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for demanding the delivery of 1. m. appearance fee of P1.letter from the respondent asking for the delivery of the 1. 2001. m. affirmed that Daroy and his wife appeared before him on March 31. transportation and other incidental expenses. 2003. Ngaseo. Patricio Ngaseo’s Makati office to engage his services as counsel in a case involving a piece of land in San Carlos. Daisy Felicilda likewise stated in an affidavit executed on February 17. 2002.00 per court appearance.000. The finding that the deed of sale was forged was simply implied from the report of the NBI writing expert.00 and P1. But Erasmo Damasing.000. respondent Atty. Nor was the NBI writing expert ever called to testify on his finding that the signature of Daroy in the deed of sale appeared to have been signed by a different hand. complainant received a demand. WHEREFORE. the notary public who notarized the deed. when the appellate court ordered the return of the 2-hectare parcel of land to the family of the complainant.00.000. 2003. 1971 and. o Respondent further contends that he can collect the unpaid appearance fee even without a written contract on the basis of the principle of quantum meruit . 2003. m. The said decision became final and executory on January 18.  Respondent agreed to handle the case for an acceptance fee of P20.  Complainant alleges that he did not promise to pay the respondent 1. there was no actual acquisition of the property in litigation since the respondent only made a written .00 per hearing and the cost of meals. of land as appearance fees. parcel of land which was the subject of litigation. o On January 29. in his presence. 1986 that she was a witness to the execution of the deed of sale and that she saw Daroy signing the deed of sale. complainant filed a complaint before the IBP charging his former counsel.000 sq. Daroy never denied these claims of the notary public and a witness to the execution of the deed of sale. Issue: WON Atty. the case has been terminated. IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year. would not handle a case for an acceptance fee of only P20. Pangasinan. In the same letter. signed the document in question. Ngaseo violated Article 1491 Held: NO.It is true that the NBI found the signature of Regalado Daroy on the deed of sale made in favor of Jose Gangay to have been forged.000 sq. piece of land which he allegedly promised as payment for respondent’s appearance fee. o On February 14. of land which was offered and promised to him in lieu of the appearance fees.000. Sales | Case Digests| 69 o In a report dated July 18. the Court of Appeals rendered a favorable decision ordering the return of the disputed 2-hectare land to the complainant and his siblings. m. complaint against Abecia is DISMIS Ramos v Ngaseo (Canada) Facts:  Federico Ramos went to respondent Atty.

2003 was made long after the judgment in Civil Case No.. the said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes place during the pendency of the litigation involving the client’s property. where the property is acquired after the termination of the case. The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved.e. The letter of demand dated January 29. Even assuming arguendo that such demand for delivery is unethical. SCC-2128 became final and executory on January 18. i. not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of Article 1491. Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code. by virtue of his office. the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these persons.[8] It is founded on public policy because. hence. respondent’s act does not fall within the purview of Article 1491. 2002. an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client.demand for its delivery which the complainant refused to comply. Consequently. lawyers are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their profession. Mere demand for delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of ownership.[9] However.[7] The prohibition on purchase is all embracing to include not only sales to private individuals but also public or judicial sales. no .