Case Summary (G.R. No. 184389)
Key Dates and Procedural History
- 1934: Militante caused survey shown in Psu-99791.
- 1952: Iloilo land registration court dismissed Militante’s application (Land Case No. R-695).
- June 18, 1956: Militante purportedly sold the land to Rubias.
- Sept. 22, 1958: Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Militante’s land registration application (CA-G.R. No. 13497‑R).
- Apr. 22, 1960 – Nov. 26, 1964: Forcible entry/detainer proceedings resulted in judgment for defendant (Iloilo courts), which found defendant’s better right to possession.
- Aug. 31, 1964: Rubias filed suit for ownership and possession (ejectment) against Batiller.
- Dec. 9, 1964: Pre-trial stipulations executed by parties and counsel, recording many operative facts and documentary exhibits.
- Aug. 17, 1965: Defendant lodged a motion to dismiss.
- Oct. 18, 1965: Trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint; motion for reconsideration denied Jan. 14, 1966.
- Appeal certified to the Supreme Court as involving pure questions of law (certified July 25, 1972).
Applicable Law
Civil Code provisions central to the decision:
- Article 1491(5) (prohibition on justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks, and lawyers acquiring property or rights in litigation in which they take part).
- Article 1409(7) (contracts “expressly prohibited or declared void by law” are inexistent and void from the beginning).
Prior jurisprudence considered: Wolfson v. Estate of Martinez (1911) and Director of Lands v. Abagat (1929), with analysis of later authorities and doctrinal commentary on absolute nullity.
Stipulated Facts at Pre‑trial
The parties agreed and removed from dispute several material facts: Militante’s 1934 survey (Psu-99791); the filing, reconstitution, trial and dismissal (1952) of Militante’s land registration application (R-695) and pending appeal to the Court of Appeals; the 1956 sale by Militante to Rubias; the Court of Appeals’ 1958 judgment affirming dismissal; mutual tax declarations and payments by Militante, Rubias and defendant on parts of the land; defendant’s separate survey and plan Psu-155241; and the prior forcible entry and detainer proceedings resulting in judgment for the defendant.
Lower Courts’ Findings and Rulings
The Iloilo trial court, after pre-trial and on defendant’s motion, dismissed Rubias’s ejectment/ownership complaint. The court found (1) that Militante’s registration application had been dismissed and that the Court of Appeals’ judgment in 1958 conclusively established Militante’s lack of title; (2) that Rubias’s purchase from Militante in 1956 occurred while Rubias was counsel of record for Militante in the land registration litigation; and (3) that the sale was void under Articles 1491 and 1409, and therefore could not confer title or a cause of action on Rubias. The trial court’s judgment in an earlier ejectment action (1964) had similarly recognized defendant’s superior right to possession.
Issues Presented on Appeal
The certified legal questions were: (1) whether the 1956 contract of sale between Militante and Rubias (when Rubias was Militante’s counsel in the pending land-registration litigation) was void ab initio under Article 1491 and rendered inexistent under Article 1409, and (2) whether the trial court erred in entertaining defendant’s motion to dismiss after pre-trial and after filing of an answer.
Supreme Court’s Analysis — Existence of Cause of Action
The Court emphasized that the stipulated facts and exhibits established that Militante had no judicially recognized title: his land registration application had been dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed by final judgment of the Court of Appeals in 1958. Because Militante’s claim to the property was decisively rejected, he had no title or right that could be transferred. Consequently, Rubias’s complaint seeking declaration of ownership, recovery of possession, and damages lacked factual and legal basis, and thus no cause of action existed to sustain the suit.
Supreme Court’s Analysis — Illegality and Nullity of the Lawyer’s Purchase
The Court analyzed Articles 1491(5) and 1409(7) jointly. Article 1491(5) expressly prohibits lawyers from acquiring property and rights in litigation in which they take part. Article 1409 renders “those expressly prohibited or declared void by law” inexistent and void from the beginning. The Court rejected the narrower view in Wolfson that such purchases are merely voidable and only at the vendor’s election, relying instead on later jurisprudence (e.g., Abagat) and authoritative doctrine showing that purchases by judicial officers or lawyers of property involved in litigation run against public policy and are therefore absolutely null. The Court cited comparative Spanish authorities and doctrinal commentators to support the rule that the prohibition rests on public policy and cannot be cured by ratification; the nullity is definitive and may be invoked by any person affected when juridical effects founded on the void transaction are asserted against him.
Application of Law to the Facts — Motion to Dismiss Properly Entertained
Given the pre-trial stipulations and documentary record, the Court found the case effectively at a point equivalent to full trial. The lower court properly entertained and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss after pre-trial because (1) the stipulated facts
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184389)
Title, Citation and Panel
- Case citation: 151-A Phil. 584; G.R. No. L-35702; decided May 29, 1973.
- Parties: Domingo D. Rubias, plaintiff-appellant, versus Isaias Batiller, defendant-appellee.
- Decision authored by Justice TeehanKee (TEEHANKEE, J.).
- Concurrence noted: Makalintal, Acting C.J., Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Questions Presented / Issues Certified
- Whether the contract of sale (1956) between Domingo D. Rubias and his father-in-law, Francisco Militante, over the property described in Psu-99791 was void because Rubias was counsel of record for Militante in a land registration case involving that same property.
- Whether the trial court correctly entertained and granted defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss plaintiff-appellant’s complaint after pre-trial and after the defendant had filed an answer, where the motion raised a collateral question of law.
Procedural History (Trial and Appellate Posture)
- Original suit: On August 31, 1964, Domingo D. Rubias filed suit to recover ownership and possession of portions of lot under Psu-99791 located in Barrio General Luna, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, purchased from Francisco Militante in 1956; plaintiff also prayed for damages and attorney’s fees.
- Defendant’s response: Answer with counterclaim alleging lack of cause of action, asserting continuous actual possession under claim of ownership since time immemorial and seeking moral damages (P2,000.00) and attorney’s fees (P500.00) for alleged malicious institution of the complaint.
- Pre-trial: December 9, 1964 pre-trial conference and resulting pre-trial order in which parties stipulated material facts and exhibits (sub-paragraphs A.1–A.10; B.1–B.3; C.1–C.4).
- Motion to dismiss: Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff had no cause of action and that the sale to plaintiff was void under Arts. 1409 and 1491 of the Civil Code, because plaintiff, a lawyer, purchased property in litigation from his client.
- Trial court action: On October 18, 1965, the lower court issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint; plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 14, 1966.
- Appeal and certification: Appeal filed by plaintiff; Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as involving purely legal questions.
Stipulated Facts and Documentary Exhibits (Pre-trial Findings)
- Land identification and survey:
- Francisco Militante claimed a parcel surveyed July 18–31, 1934, plan Psu-99791 (Exh. B), area originally 171.3561 hectares.
- Land registration case history:
- Militante filed pre-war application for registration with CFI Iloilo, opposed by Director of Lands and others; wartime loss of record led to petition to reconstitute record; reconstituted as Land Case No. R-695, GLRO Rec. No. 54852.
- Court of First Instance heard the land registration case on November 14, 1952, and dismissed Militante’s application for registration.
- Militante appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. No. 13497-R.
- On September 22, 1958, the Court of Appeals promulgated judgment confirming the dismissal of Militante’s application (Exh. I).
- Sale and recording:
- While the appeal in CA-G.R. No. 13497-R was pending, on June 18, 1956, Militante sold the land to Domingo Rubias (Exh. A); recorded in Register of Deeds as Entry No. 13609 on July 14, 1960 (Exh. A-1).
- Deed of sale described the property as "a parcel of untitled land having an area of 144.9072 hectares... surveyed under Psu-99791" and expressly referenced exclusions under case CA-13497, Land Registration Case No. R-695.
- Tax declarations and payments:
- Domingo Rubias declared the land for taxation under Tax Dec. No. 8585 (1957), Nos. 9533 and 10019 (1961), and No. 9868 (1964); paid taxes under Nos. 8585 and 9533 (Exhs. D, D-1, G-6).
- Francisco Militante had earlier tax declarations (No. 5172 for 1940/1945; T-86 for 1948; No. 7122) and paid taxes shown in Exhs. G, G-1 through G-7.
- Liberato Demontano previously had Tax Dec. No. 2434; this was cancelled by Militante’s Tax Dec. No. 5172.
- Defendant declared Lot No. 2 of Psu-155241 under Tax Dec. No. 8583 (1957) and a portion for 1945 under Tax Dec. No. 8584; revisions and cancellations (Tax No. 9498, 9584) and payments for years including 1945–46, 1950, 1960 were evidenced.
- Defendant’s survey and plan:
- Defendant’s claimed land was surveyed on June 6–7, 1956, with a plan approved by Director of Lands on November 15, 1956 identified as Psu-155241 (Exh. 5).
- Forcible entry & detainer history:
- Plaintiff filed forcible entry and detainer action on April 22, 1960 before Justice of the Peace (Exh. 4); municipal court decided for defendant on May 10, 1961 (Exh. 4-B).
- Plaintiff appealed to CFI (Civil Case No. 5750); after trial, CFI decided on November 26, 1964 in favor of defendant, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and finding defendant had "a better right to possess the land in question... having been in the actual physical possession thereof under a claim of title many years before Francisco Militante sold the land to the plaintiff," and ordering plaintiff to pay attorney’s fees (Exh. 4-D / Exh. 4-B as described).
Plaintiff’s Claims and Reserved Trial Matters
- Plaintiff’s case plan (as per pre-trial Par. B):
- To prove source of Militante’s alleged title tracing back to Liberato Demontano via judicial sale to Yap Pongco (public auction Sept. 6, 1919; entries and deeds registered 1920–1934) and subsequent sale to Militante on September 22, 1934 (notarial deed Exh. J; registry May 13, 1940).
- To prove damages alleged in complaint.
- Plaintiff’s assignments of error on appeal from dismissal:
- Lower court erred in holding the contract of sale void rather than voidable because the sale was made when plaintiff was counsel of record for Militante.
- Lower court erred in holding defendant is an interested person entitled to question validity of the contract of sale.
- Lower court erred in entertaining the motion to dismiss after answer filed and after pre-trial when the motion raised a collateral question.
- Lower court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
Defendant’s Defensive and Affirmative Allegations (Pre-trial Par. C)
- Defendant’s factual assertions to be proven:
- Lot No. 2 of Psu-155241 was originally owned and possessed by Felipe Batiller, succeeded by Basilio Batiller (died 1920), and then by Isaias Batiller in 1930; since 1930 the land was in defendant’s actual, open, public, peaceful and continuous possession as owner, exclusive and adverse to other claimants.
- Plaintiff’s predecessors-in-interest were never in actual posse