DOMINGO RUBIAS V.

ISAIAS BATILLER
G.R. L-35702 | May 29, 1973 | J. Teehankee

DOCTRINE: Property in litigation, which are entrusted to public and judicial officers and lawyers, sold by their clients, are
rendered void and inexistent from the beginning. (NCC 1491, par. 4 & 5)

SUMMARY: Rubias claims to be the true owner of a lot, which Batiller claims to have been in his open, continuous and
public possession of the respondent. The Court ruled that the latter is the rightful owner, given the fact that the property
was sold to the Rubias by his father-in-law (Militante) who is, at that time, his client in the case where said property is the
subject of litigation. Thus, the sale was void from the beginning, and no legal right has been transferred to Rubias.

FACTS:
• Domingo Rubias (lawyer) filed a suit to recover ownership and possession of portions of lot located in Barrio General
Luna, Barotac, Viejo, Iloilo, which he bought from his father-in-law, Francisco Militante
• Rubias claims Batiller, its present occupant, illegally entered said portions of the lot on 2 occasions - in 1945 and 1959
• The property in question is untitled after the TC dismissed the application for registration of Militante even before the
land was sold to Rubias. CA affirmed the dismissal.
• Rubias claims that the land was formerly owned and possessed by Liebrato Demontaño and was sold at public
auction, for which Yap Pongco was the purchaser. Pongco then sold it to Militante as evidenced by a notarial deed.
• Batiller claims that the lot was originally owned and possessed by Felipe Batiller, grandfather of Basillo Batiller, his
sole heir. He then succeeded his father in 1930, and up to the present, has been in actual, open, public peaceful and
continuous possession of the said land.
• Batiller also claims that there is no cause of action for Rubias since the lot that the latter allegedly bought from his
father-in-law was the subject matter of a case in which Rubias was also the counsel on record of his father-in-law. He
asserts that this is in violation of Arts. 1409 (par. 7) and 1491 (par. 5) of the Civil Code.

ISSUE: W/N the contract of sale between Rubias and his father-in-law was void – YES.

• NCC 1491 provides that a purchase by a lawyer (Rubias) of the property in litigation from his client (Militante) is void
and could produce no legal effect.
• On the other hand, NCC 1409 also provides that contracts expressly prohibited or declared void by law are inexistent
and cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set-up the defense of illegality be waived.
• Rubias’ claim of ownership was predicated on the sale by his father-in-law at a time when Militante's application for
registration had already been dismissed by the Iloilo and registration court. Thus, there was no right or title to the land
that could be transferred or sold by Militante
• Rubias’ reliance on Wolfson v. Estate of Martinez, saying that sale of property in litigation to the party litigant's lawyer
is not void, but voidable, is also incorrect since it was superseded by the later case of Director of Lands v. Abagat,
wherein the Court ruled that estate of Juan Soriano may not be transferred to Soriano's lawyer, Palarca. Thus a writ of
possession was issued for return of land without reimbursement of the price paid by the lawyer and other expenses.
• Our Philippine Civil Code, now, recognizes the absolute nullity of contracts "whose cause, object, or purpose is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy" or which are "expressly prohibited or declared
void by law" and declares such contracts "inexistent and void from the beginning.".

DISPOSITION: Order of Dismissal affirmed.

NOTES: (Other issue): The lower court was also correct in entertaining Batiller's motion to dismiss after he already filed
his answer and agreed on some matters in a pre-trial conference with Rubias. The lower court properly on the ground of
nullity of plaintiff's alleged purchase of the land, since its juridical effects and plaintiff's alleged cause of action founded
thereon were being asserted against defendant-appellant.