A.M. No. 133-J (May 31, 1982)
Topics: Persons cannot acquire by purchase even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the petition of another
Summary:
Judge Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Leyte was accused of “acts unbecoming a judge” in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E. Bernardita R. Macariola filed an immediate complaint against him on August 9, 1968.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the sale or assignment of property at issue in a lawsuit must take place while the dispute over the property is still in court, otherwise the transfer is not subject to the same bar as the sale of property.
Doctrines:
Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another:
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
For the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property.
Facts:
When respondent Hon. Judge’s judgment in Civil Case No. 3010 was rendered, a proposal of partition was presented to Judge Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, who later accepted it in an Order dated October 23, 1963, and who became final on June 8, 1863 for lack of an appeal. Bernardita R. Macariola, the complainant, was one of the parties thereto. Lot 1184 was one of the properties mentioned in the partition project. According to the judge’s ruling, this property was divided into five lots with the designations Lot 1184-A to Lot 1184-E and awarded to the plaintiffs Reyes in equal shares.
Lot 1184-E was sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon on July 31, 1964. Judge Asuncion and his wife Victoria Asuncion eventually purchased a portion of Lot 1184-E from Dr. Galapon. Following that, spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon transferred their respective ownership stakes in Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc., of which Judge Asuncion served as president.
When Judge Asuncion purchased a section of Lot 1184-E, Macariola filed an immediate complaint against him on August 9, 1968, docketed as Civil Case No. 4234 in the CFI of Leyte, charging him with “acts unbecoming a judge” in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E violated Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Art. 14, pars. 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par. H of R.A. 3019, Sec. 12 Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
“Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another:
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession”.
Issue:
Whether the respondent judge violated Art. 1491 (5) of the NCC.
Ruling:
Only the sale or assignment of the property at issue in the lawsuit is prohibited under the aforementioned Article. All other transfers are exempt.
The court decided that in order for the prohibition to be in effect, the sale or assignment of the property must happen while the dispute over the property is still in court. Because no party to the case filed an appeal within the reglementary period, the respondent Judge’s decision in Civil Case No. 3010, which he rendered on June 8, 1963, was already final when he bought a portion of Lot 1184E on March 6, 1965. As a result, the dispute over the lot in question was no longer in court.
Furthermore, because there had been no appeal from the respondents’ decisions dated October 23, 1963 and November 11, 1963 sanctioning the October 16, 1963 project of partition prepared in accordance with the June 8, 1963 ruling, they had long since become final at the time of the