G.R. No. L-18727 - Cui vs. Cui

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

Factual Background

The Hospicio de San Jose de Barili is a charitable institution created by the spouses Don Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui and incorporated by Act No. 3239. The founders endowed the Hospicio with extensive property by a deed of donation dated 2 January 1926 and prescribed a scheme of succession for its administration. The deed provided that, after the founders, administration would pass to designated nephews and, subsequently, to a single adult male descendant of any of the named nephews who would "posea titulo de abogado, o medico, o ingeniero civil, o farmaceutico, o a falta de estos titulos, el que pague al Estado mayor impuesto o contribution," with preference in equal circumstances for the older male descendant of the line that last held the administration. Don Pedro died in 1926 and Dona Benigna in 1929, after which Mauricio Cui and Dionisio Jakosalem succeeded; both died in 1931 and Dr. Teodoro Cui, son of Mauricio, became administrator on 2 July 1931.

Procedural History

A quo warranto proceeding concerning the office of administrator was filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu and judgment was rendered for Jesus Ma. Cui on 27 April 1961. Both Antonio Ma. Cui and intervenor Romulo Cui appealed. The litigation over the office extends back to 1932 when Jesus Ma. Cui first sought the office by complaint in quo warranto against Dr. Teodoro; that action was dismissed on demurrer but was remanded by the Supreme Court (Cui v. Cui, 60 Phil. 37). The plaintiff thereafter accepted the post of assistant administrator and pursued various extra-judicial and judicial steps through the 1950s, including proceedings in Civil Case No. R-1216 and a mandamus in G.R. No. L-8540 decided 28 May 1956; the parties agreed that the office controversy should be litigated in a quo warranto initiated against the incumbent by whoever claimed the right.

The Parties' Contentions

Jesus Ma. Cui urged that, as the elder son of Mariano Cui and a holder of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws, he had superior qualification under the deed's preference for a descendant who "posea titulo de abogado" and, in equal circumstances, by age. Antonio Ma. Cui contended that he was a member of the Bar and therefore possessed the requisite "titulo de abogado"; he relied on his reinstatement to the roll of attorneys on 10 February 1960 to cure prior disbarment. Romulo Cui intervened asserting a right by descent as grandson of Vicente Cui and argued that, because the last administrator belonged to the Mauricio line, the next administrator should come from the Vicente line in accordance with the sequence of names in the deed.

Issue Presented

The principal legal questions were whether the phrase "titulo de abogado" in the deed of donation refers to possession of an academic law degree or to admission to the Bar and license to practice; whether Antonio Ma. Cui was disqualified by his earlier disbarment despite subsequent reinstatement; whether Jesus Ma. Cui's claim was barred by prescription or laches under Section 16, Rule 66; and whether the deed required lineal rotation of administration among the named nephews in the order written.

Ruling of the Court a quo

The Court of First Instance held that the phrase "titulo de abogado," in the context of the deed and considering the functions of the administrator, should be liberally construed to mean the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws and therefore ruled in favor of Jesus Ma. Cui.

Ruling of the Supreme Court (Disposition)

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the complaint and the complaint in intervention, with costs equally against plaintiff-appellee Jesus Ma. Cui and intervenor-appellant Romulo Cui.

Legal Basis and Reasoning — Meaning of "titulo de abogado"

The Court held that "titulo de abogado" denotes not mere possession of the academic degree conferred by a law school but membership in the Bar following proper admission, qualifying one to practice law. The Court relied on the Spanish definitions of "titulo" as an instrument enabling exercise of a profession and "abogado" as one who defends rights in court. The Court explained that in this jurisdiction admission to the Bar and the practice of law are governed by the Supreme Court under Rule 138, which requires passing the Bar examinations, taking the oath, and receiving the Clerk's certificate as the license to practice. The academic Bachelor of Laws degree is relevant only as evidence of completion of prescribed courses for eligibility to take the Bar examinations but does not itself confer the right to practice or the "titulo de abogado" within the meaning of the deed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning — Effect of Reinstatement after Disbarment

The Court addressed the disqualification argument based on Antonio's prior disbarment on 29 March 1957 and noted that his reinstatement on 10 February 1960 recognized his moral rehabilitation. The Court observed that reinstatement restores the attorney's status and wipes out restrictions and disabilities resulting from prior disbarment. The Court cited authorities quoted in the record that articulate the standard for reinstatement: the applicant must satisfy the court that public interest will be conserved and that he is a fit and proper person of good moral character to practice law; reinstatement requires proof of reformation and may demand a degree of proof equal to or greater than original admission.

Legal Basis and Reasoning — Prescription and Laches

The Court found that Jesus Ma. Cui's action was barred by prescription under Section 16, Rule 66, which requires that quo warranto be filed within one year after the plaintiff's right to hold the office arose. The Court traced Jesus's asserted right to as early as 1932 when he filed quo warranto and participated in the ensuing litigation, subsequently accepted the post of assistant administrator, and engaged in multiple extra-judicial assertions of authority through the 1950s. The Court recounted the Secretary of Justice opinion of 3 April 1950 advising that the plaintiff, not being a lawyer, was not entitled to the administration; the proceedings in Civil Case No. R-1216, motions and oaths taken in 1950 and 1954, the mandamus in G.R. No. L-8540 decided 28 May 1956, and the parties' agreement that the office controversy be litigated in quo warranto as reflected in the dismissal of the appeal on 31 July 1956. Given these events, the Court held that the one-year period ran fr

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

Parties and Procedural Posture

Jesus Ma. Cui instituted a proceeding in quo warranto in the Court of First Instance of Cebu claiming the office of Administrator of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili.
Antonio Ma. Cui was the incumbent who assumed the office on 28 February 1960 after receiving the office by virtue of a notarial "convenio" with the then administrator and was the defendant and appellant here.
Romulo Cui intervened claiming a right to the same office as a descendant in another line and was an intervenor and appellant.
The trial court rendered judgment on 27 April 1961 in favor of Jesus Ma. Cui, and Antonio Ma. Cui and Romulo Cui appealed.
The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and related prior proceedings and delivered the present decision reversing the judgment below.

Key Facts

The Hospicio de San Jose de Barili was created by the spouses Don Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui and was incorporated by Act No. 3239 passed 27 November 1925.
The founders endowed the Hospicio with properties and executed a deed of donation on 2 January 1926 prescribing the mode of succession for administration.
The deed designated a sequence of administrators among specified nephews and their legitimate male descendants, preferring those who "posea titulo de abogado, o medico, o ingeniero civil, o farmaceutico, o a falta de estos titulos, el que pague al Estado mayor impuesto o contribution."
After the founders died, administration passed through designated relatives and on 2 July 1931 Dr. Teodoro Cui became administrator and served until his resignation on 27 February 1960.
Jesus Ma. Cui held the academic degree Bachelor of Laws but he had never been admitted to the Bar.
Antonio Ma. Cui was a member of the Bar, had been disbarred on 29 March 1957, and was reinstated by this Court on 10 February 1960, shortly before he assumed the office.
Jesus Ma. Cui filed the present quo warranto on 13 September 1960 after his demand for turnover was refused.

Relevant Law

Act No. 3239 conferred corporate existence on the Hospicio and empowered its managers to make regulations and administer property.
The deed of donation provided the succession rule and the preference for one who "posea titulo de abogado" or certain other professional titles, and in default the one who paid the largest taxes.
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court prescribes admission to the Bar by passing the Bar examinations, taking the lawyer's oath, and receiving a certificate from the Clerk of Court as license to practice.
Section 16 of Rule 66 prescribes that an action in quo warranto must be filed within one year after the plaintiff's right to the office arose.

Issues

Whether the phrase "titulo de abogado" in the deed of donation means possession of an academic law degree or membership in the Bar by admission to practice.
Whether the prior disbarment of Antonio Ma. Cui and his subsequent reinstatement affected his qualification under the deed's moral character and fitness requirements.
Whether the action of Jesus Ma. Cui is barred by lapse of time, prescripti