The document summarizes two Philippine Supreme Court cases related to land ownership disputes and contracts.
In the first case, Rubias vs Batiller, the Court ruled that a contract of sale between a lawyer and his client was void under Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring property that is the subject of litigation from their clients.
In the second case, Tongoy vs Court of Appeals, the Court found that deeds transferring land rights were simulated or fictitious contracts intended to restructure a mortgage. It ruled that the action to reconvey the land based on these invalid contracts could not be barred by prescription, as simulated contracts cannot be validated over time.
The document summarizes two Philippine Supreme Court cases related to land ownership disputes and contracts.
In the first case, Rubias vs Batiller, the Court ruled that a contract of sale between a lawyer and his client was void under Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring property that is the subject of litigation from their clients.
In the second case, Tongoy vs Court of Appeals, the Court found that deeds transferring land rights were simulated or fictitious contracts intended to restructure a mortgage. It ruled that the action to reconvey the land based on these invalid contracts could not be barred by prescription, as simulated contracts cannot be validated over time.
The document summarizes two Philippine Supreme Court cases related to land ownership disputes and contracts.
In the first case, Rubias vs Batiller, the Court ruled that a contract of sale between a lawyer and his client was void under Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring property that is the subject of litigation from their clients.
In the second case, Tongoy vs Court of Appeals, the Court found that deeds transferring land rights were simulated or fictitious contracts intended to restructure a mortgage. It ruled that the action to reconvey the land based on these invalid contracts could not be barred by prescription, as simulated contracts cannot be validated over time.
The document summarizes two Philippine Supreme Court cases related to land ownership disputes and contracts.
In the first case, Rubias vs Batiller, the Court ruled that a contract of sale between a lawyer and his client was void under Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring property that is the subject of litigation from their clients.
In the second case, Tongoy vs Court of Appeals, the Court found that deeds transferring land rights were simulated or fictitious contracts intended to restructure a mortgage. It ruled that the action to reconvey the land based on these invalid contracts could not be barred by prescription, as simulated contracts cannot be validated over time.
May 29, 1973 Facts: Francisco Militante claimed that he owned a parcel of land located in Iloilo. He filed with the RTC of Ililo an application for the registration of title of the land. This was opposed by the Director of Lands, the Director of Foresrty , and other oppositors. The case was docked as a land case, and after trial the court dismissed the application for registration. Militante appealed to the Court of Appeals. Pending that appeal, he sold to Rubias(his son-in-law and a lawyer) the land. The CA rendered a decision, dismissing the application for registration. Rubias filed a Forcible Entry and Detainer case against Batiller. In that case, the court held that Rubias has no cause of action because the property in dispute which Rubias allegedly bought from Militante was the subject matter of a land case, in which case Rubias was the counsel on record of Militante himself. It thus falls under Art 1491 of the Civil Code. Hence, this appeal. Issue: Whether the contract of sale between the petitioner and his father-in-law was void because it was made when plaintiff was counsel of his father-in-law in a land registration case involving the property in dispute Ruling: Yes. The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his clients is categorically prohibited by Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, and that consequently, plaintiffs purchase of the property in litigation from his client was void and could produce no legal effect by virtue of Article 1409, paragraph 7 of the Civil Code 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. The Court cited Director of Lands vs. Abagat (53 Phil 147; March 27, 1929), which the Court again affirming the invalidity and nullity of the lawyers purchase of the land in litigation from his client, ordered the issuance of writ of possession for the return of the land by the lawyer to the adverse parties without reimbursement of the price paid by him and other expenses. 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 employees, judicial officers and employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers, and e.) others especially disqualified by law. TONGOY vs Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. NO. L-45645 June 28, 1983 Facts: Patricio D. Tongoy and Luis Tongoy executed a Declaration of Inheritance wherein they declared themselves as the only heirs of the late Francisco Tongoy and thereby entitled to the latter's share in Hacienda Pulo. Ana Tongoy et al. executed an "Escritura de Venta", which by its terms transferred for consideration their rights and interests over Hacienda Pulo in favor of Luis D. Tongoy. Thereafter, Jesus Sonora and Jose Tongoy followed suit by each executing a similar "Escritura de Venta" pertaining to their corresponding rights and interests over Hacienda Pulo in favor also of Luis D. Tongoy. Luis Tongoy died, leaving as heirs his wife Maria Rosario Araneta and his son Francisco A. Tongoy. Just before his death, however, Luis D. Tongoy received a letter from Jesus T. Sonora, demanding the return of the shares in the properties to the co- owners. Alleging in sum that plaintiffs and/or their predecessors transferred their interests on the two lots in question to Luis D. Tongoy by means of simulated sales, pursuant to a trust arrangement whereby the latter would return such interests after the mortgage obligations thereon had been settled. Issue: Whether the rights of herein respondents over subject properties, which were the subjects of simulated or fictitious transactions, have already prescribed Ruling: No. Article 1409 (2): "Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious" xxx These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived; and Art. 1410. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. Evidently, the deeds of transfer executed in favor of Luis Tongoy were from the very beginning absolutely simulated or fictitious, since the same were made merely for the purpose of restructuring the mortgage over the subject properties and thus preventing the foreclosure by the bank. Considering the law and jurisprudence on simulated or fictitious contracts as aforestated, the within action for reconveyance instituted by herein respondents which is anchored on the said simulated deeds of transfer cannot and should not be barred by prescription. No amount of time could accord validity or efficacy to such fictitious transactions, the defect of which is permanent.