Title
Cui vs. Cui
Case
G.R. No. L-18727
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1964
A dispute over the administration of Hospicio de San Jose de Barili centered on interpreting "titulo de abogado," with the Supreme Court ruling it requires Bar membership, favoring Antonio Ma. Cui over Jesus Ma. Cui and Romulo Cui.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18727)

Facts:

  • Establishment and Succession Provisions
    • The Hospicio de San Jose de Barili was founded by spouses Don Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui “for the care and support, free of charge, of indigent invalids, and incapacitated and helpless persons.” It acquired corporate existence by Act No. 3239 (27 Nov. 1925). Section 2 entrusted initial management to the founders and, upon their death or incapacity, “to such persons as they may nominate or designate, in the order prescribed by them.”
    • By deed of donation (2 Jan. 1926), the spouses designated succession as follows:
      • First, their nephew Mariano Cui, if residing in Cebu City; otherwise Mauricio Cui. Both to administer jointly.
      • Upon their death or incapacity, “a single male of legal age, legitimately descended from any of our nephews Mariano, Mauricio, Vicente or Victor Cui, who possesses a ‘título de abogado, o médico, o ingeniero civil, o farmacéutico,’ or, lacking these titles, the one paying the highest state taxes; ties to be broken by seniority in age among descendants of the last administrator.”
      • Failing all, administration passes to the Provincial Governor of Cebu.
  • Chronology of Administrators and Litigation
    • Pedro Cui died in 1926; Benigna in 1929; then joint administration by Mauricio and Dionisio Jakosalem (deaths in May and July 1931). On 2 July 1931 Dr. Teodoro Cui (son of Mauricio) became administrator. Beginning in 1932, Jesus Ma. Cui initiated quo warranto proceedings against Teodoro (60 Phil. 376), was remanded, but accepted assistant administrator position instead of further prosecution. Various extra-judicial claims (1950 letters, Secretary of Justice opinion No. 45 s.1950), civil suit R-1216 (1950–54), and Supreme Court mandamus (G.R. L-8540) ensued. The pending appeal was dismissed on 31 July 1956 to allow fresh quo warranto. No new suit was filed then.
    • On 27 February 1960 Dr. Teodoro resigned in favor of Antonio Ma. Cui by notarial “convenio”; Antonio took his oath on 28 February. Jesus Ma. Cui, unaware of this arrangement, wrote on 5 September demanding turnover. On 13 September 1960 he filed the present quo warranto complaint. Romulo Cui, grandson of Vicente Cui, later intervened, claiming right as an alternative descendant.

Issues:

  • Interpretation of “título de abogado.”
  • Effect of Antonio Ma. Cui’s prior disbarment and subsequent reinstatement on his moral qualification.
  • Whether Jesus Ma. Cui’s quo warranto action is barred by the one-year prescription under Rule 66, Sec. 16.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.