1.

No, i would have affirmed with the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case filed against Judge
Asuncion on the merits that the prohibition in the aforesaid Article violated, applies only to the sale or
assignment of the property which is the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified therein. Judge
Asuncion purchased the said property 2 years after his decision on the said case became final. And that
the latter did not purchase the property directly from any of the parties involved during the litigation of
the said case.

2.

A. In the case of Rubias v. Batiller, 51 SCRA 120 (1973), here the prohibition in the aforesaid Article
has been violated by Atty. Rubias. As a ponente in this case i would affirm with the decision of the lower
court. Francisco Militante is the father-in-law of Atty. Rubias wherein the said property sold to him was
the subject of litigation by which Atty. Rubias was claiming for its recovery of its ownership and
possession and under which the latter was the counsel of the said case, clearly showed that there was a
grave violation of the provision of Art. 1491.

B. In the case of Director of Lands v. Ababa, 88 SCRA 513 (1979), here the prohibition in the
aforesaid Article was not violated. Atty. Fernandez was the annotated adverse claimant in the new
transfer certificate title of the property said to be the subject of litigation. As a ponente in this case, i
would affirm with the resolution of the lower court resolving the case in favour of Atty. Fernandez. It
clearly showed that the prohibition does not apply to cases where after completion of litigation, the
lawyer may seek on account his fees and interest in the assets realized by the litigation and that a
contingent fee is not covered under the said provision of Art. 1491 for the transfer of assignment of
property in litigation takes effect only after finality of favourable judgement.