7-9

CUI v CUI

Facts:

Don Pedro Cui together with his wife established Hospicio de San Jose de Barili. They
were the initial administrator of the same. Upon the death of Don Pedro, the
administration was passed to their descendants and in 1932, series of controversies
involving the position ensued.

The incumbent administrator, Dr. Teodoro Cui, resigned in favor of Antonio Cui.
However, the latters older brother Jesus Cui demanded that the office be turned
over to him. As between Jesus and Antonio, the main issue is their respective
qualifications to the position of administrator.

Jesus is the older of the two and under EQUAL circumstances, would be preferred
pursuant to sec 2 of the deed of donation. He is also a Law graduate but was unable
to pass the bar. Antonio, on the other hand, is a member of the bar although was
just reinstated after having been disbarred two weeks before his assumption of
office.

Issue:

Who should be the administrator?

Held:

Antonio Cui. Titulo de abogad means not merely possession of Bachelor of Laws
but ,e,bership in the Bar after due admission thereto and qualifying one in the
practice.

As regards to the disbarment, the reinstatement is a recognition of his moral

rehabilitation.

In re Arthur Castillo Reyes

Facts:

The petitioner graduated from UP COL and passed the bar in 1939. He thereafter
served in the US Armed Forces and became eligible for citizenship under the 1990
US Immigration Act. He became naturalized citizen of the US in 1993. The
petitioner, however, continued handling cases in his private practice of law.

Held:
Under the Consti, XII S14, only Filipino citizens may practice law.

In re Muneses

Facts:

The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on March 21, 1966; that he lost his privilege to practice law when
he became a citizen of the United States of America (USA) on August 28, 1981; that
on September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
2003 by taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
Consulate General in Washington, D.C., USA; that he intends to retire in the
Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of law.

Isuse:

Whether or not the petitioner may practice law

Held:

The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the
bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss thereof
means termination of the petitioners membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege
to engage in the practice of law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who
have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a
citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A.
No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in
Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225
provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must
apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.
[In Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines, 677
SCRA 364(2012)]