RUBIAS VS BATILLER

FACTS:
Francisco Militante claimed that he owned a parcel of land located in Iloilo.
He filed with the RTC of Ililo an application for the registration of title of the
land. This was opposed by the Director of Lands, the Director of Foresrty ,
and other oppositors. The case was docked as a land case, and after trial the
court dismissed the application for registration. Militanted appealed to the
Court of Appeals. Pending that appeal, he sold to Rubias(his son-in-law and a
lawyer) the land. The CA rendered a decision, dismissing the application for
registration. Rubias filed a Forcible Entry and Detainer case against Batiller.
In that case, the court held that Rubias has no cause of action because the
property in dispute which Rubias allegedly bought from Militante was the
subject matter of a land case, in which case Rubias was the counsel on
record of Militante himself. It thus falls under Art 1491 of the Civil
Code(Hence, this appeal)
ISSUE: Whether the sale of the land is prohibited under Art 1491 of the Civil
Code.
Held: Yes. Art 1491 says :The following persons cannot acquire any purchase,
even at a public of judicial auction, either in person or through the three
cases of guardians, agents and administrators. As to their transactions, it has
been opined that they may be ratified by means of and in the form of a
new contract, in which case its validity shall be determined only by the
circumstances at the time of execution of such new contract. In those cases,
the object which was illegal at the time of the first contract may have
already become lafwful at the time of the ratification or second contract, or
the intent, or the service which was impossible. The ratification of second
contract would then be valid from its execution; however, it does not retroact
to the date of the first contract.