RUBIAS VS BATILLER

FACTS: Francisco Militante allegedly owns a parcel of land in Iloilo. He sought to have the land
registered. The petition was heard in court and was denied. Pending an appeal, he sold the land in
question to his son-in-law, Domingo Rubias, who was his counsel in the land registration case. Rubias
filed a suit to recover the possession from Isaias Batiller who presently occupies the land. Batiller claims
that Rubias has no cause of action because his family was in the ownership and possession of the land in
the year 1930, and since then up to the present, the land remains with him. His possession being actual,
open, public, peaceful and continuous in the concept of an owner, exclusive of any other rights and
adverse to all other claimants. The lower court and the CA decided in favor of Batiller.

ISSUE: WON the contract of sale between Rubias and Militante was void because it was made
when Rubias was counsel of Militante in a land case involving the property.
HELD: Yes. Article 1491 of the civil code prohibits certain persons, by reason of the relation of
trust or their peculiar control over the property from acquiring such property in their trust or
control directly or indirectly and even at a public or judicial auction as follows. A) guardians; b)
agents; c) administrators; d)public officers and employee, judicial officers and employees,
prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers,and e) other especially disqualified by law.. Rubias purchase
of the property in litigation from his client was void and could produce no legal effect by virtue
of Art. 1409 which provides that contracts expressly prohibited or declared void by law are
inexistent and void from the beginning and that these contracts cannot be ratified.