SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATIONS

Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,

even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who
may be under his guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may
have been intrusted to them, unless the consent of the
principal have been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate
under administration;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or
of any subdivision thereof, or of any government owned
or controlled corporation, or institution, the administration
of which has been entrusted to them; this provision shall
apply to judges and government experts who, in any
manner whatsoever take part in the sale;
(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;
(6) Any others specially disqualified by law.
Article 1492. The prohibitions in the two preceding articles
are applicable to sales in legal redemption, compromises and
renunciations.
Phil. Trust Co. vs. Roldan, et al. (May 31, 1956)
Facts:
-A minor, Mariano L. Bernardo, inherited from his deceased
father, Marcelo Bernardo, 17 parcels of land located in
Guiguinto, Bulacan.
-Socorro Roldan, the surviving spouse of Marcelo and the
step-mother of the minor was appointed as the minors
guardian.
-On July 27, 1947, Socorro filed a motion asking for authority
to sell as guardian the 17 parcels for the 14,700php to Dr.
Fidel C. Ramos, her brother-in-law, the purpose of the sale
being alleged to invest the money in a residential house, which
the minor desired to have on Tindalo Street, Manila. The
motion was granted.
-On August 5, 1947, Socorro, as guardian, executed the deed
of sale in favor of Dr. Fidel; and on August 12, she asked for,
and obtained, judicial confirmation of the sale.
-On August 13, Dr. Fidel executed in favor of Socorro,
personally, a deed of conveyance covering the 17 parcels, for
the sum of 15,000php.
-On October 21, Socorro sold 4 parcels to Emilio Cruz for
3,000, reserving to herself the right to repurchase.
-On August 10, 1948, Philippine Trust Company replaced
Socorro as guardian. Two months later, Phil Trust filed this
case that seeks to undo what the previous guardian (Socorro)

had done. Socorro in effect, sold to herself, the properties of

her ward, contends Phil Trust, and the sale should be annulled
because it violates Article 1459 of the CC prohibiting the
guardian from purchasing either in person or through the
mediation of another the property of her ward.
Trial Court: Upheld the validity of the contracts of sale but
allowed the minor to repurchase all the parcels by paying
15,000 within one year.
Court of Appeals: Affirmed TCs judgment, adding that the
minor knew the particulars of, and approved the transaction,
and that only clear and positive evidence of fraud or bad
faith, and not mere insinuations and inferences will overcome
the presumptions that a sale was concluded in all good faith
for value.
Issue: WON the three contracts of sale (the sale of the 17
parcels by Socorro, as guardian, to Dr. Fidel, the sale of the
same 17 parcels of land by Dr. Fidel to Socorro and the sale of
4 parcels by Socorro to Emilio) should be annulled as it
violates Article 1459.
Held: Yes.
Ratio:
The intention of Socorro to buy the 17 parcels of land for
herself was evident from the fact that she was willing to pay
Dr. Fidel 15,000php for the sale of the 17 parcels of land that
she previously sold to Dr. Fidel, only a week before she
bought it for the lower price of 14, 700. In one week, the price
could not have risen so suddenly. When she was seeking the
courts approval of the sale, she represented the price to be the
best obtainable in the market. It can be seen now that she was
not entirely truthful when she made that representation. Even
without proof that she had connived with Dr. Fidel,
remembering the general doctrine that guardianship is a trust
of the highest order, and the trustee cannot be allowed to have
any inducement to neglect his wards interest and in line with
the courts suspicion whenever the guardian acquires the
wards property, SC has no hesitation to declare that in this
case, in the eyes of law, Socorro took by purchase her wards
parcels thru Dr. Fidel, and that Article 1459 applies.
That she planned to get the land for herself at the time of
selling them to Dr. Fidel may be deduced from the very short
time between the two sales (one week). And if we were
technical, it could be said that only one day had elapsed from
the judicial approval of the sale (August 12), to the purchase
by Socorro (August 13). The temptation which naturally
besets a guardian so circumstanced, necessitates the
annulment of the transaction, even if no actual collusion is
proved between such guardian and the intermediate purchaser.
This would uphold the sound principle of equity and justice.
Said sale is also not beneficial to the minor as he could have
been earning 1,522 php per month from the fruits of the 17
parcels, as compared to the 1,200 php that he is earning from
the rentals of the house bought in Tindalo street, since the lot
of the said house was separately paid for from the house itself.
Hence, from both the legal and equitable standpoints, the three
sales should not be sustained: the first two for violation of

Article 1459; and the third because Socorro could pass no title
to Emilio, as she is not the owner of the parcels.
The annulment carries with it (Article 1303) the obligation of
Socorro to return the 17 parcels together with their fruits and
the duty of the minor through his guardian Phil Trust to repay
14,700 with legal interest.
Dispositive: Decision Reversed.
Rubias vs. Batiller (May 29, 1973)
Facts:
-On August 31, 1964, Domingo D. Rubias, a lawyer, filed a
suit to recover the ownership and possession of a lot in Barrio
General Luna, which he bought from his father-in-law
Francisco Militante in 1956 against its present occupant
defendant, Isaias Batiller.
-According to Batiller, he and his predecessors-in-interest
have always been in actual, open and continuous possession
since time immemorial under claim of ownership of the
portions of the lot in question. Batiller claimed the lot as his
own when he had it surveyed on June 6 and 7, 1956, and had
the survey and plan approved by the Director of Lands on
November 15, 1956.
-On the other hand, Rubias claimed that he has the better right
to possess the land as Francisco Militante, his father-in-law-,
from whom he bought the land, applied for the registration of
the land even before the war with Japan (1940s)
-Records show that Domingo Rubias was the lawyer of
Francisco Militante in the application for the registration of
the land in question. Said application was dismissed by the
Director of Lands in 1952, finding that some part of the land
belonged to the Bureau of Public Works and Bureau of
Forestry, and some other individuals. The said dismissal of the
application was appealed by Militante in the Supreme Court.
-Pending the appeal, Francisco sold to Rubias the land for
2,000 php. The sale was duly recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds as a sale of a parcel of untitled land.
-On September 22, 1958, CA affirmed the dismissal of the
registration of the land filed by Militante.
-Despite the dismissal, Rubias declared the land for taxation
purposes.
-Defendant contends, invoking Articles 1409 and 1491, that
plaintiff does not have a cause of action against him because
being the lawyer of Francisco Militante in the application of
the registration of the land, the said contract of sale is
inexistent and void.
Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and boid
from the beginning:
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.

Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire any purchase,

even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through
the mediation of another:
(5) ustices, 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.
-Rubias contend that defendant cannot invoke Arts. 1409 and
1491 as Article 1422 provides that The defense of illegality
of contracts is not available to third persons whose interests
are not directly affected.
Trial Court: Dismissed the reconveyance case
Court of Appeals: Affirmed the dismissal.
Issue: WON the contract of sale between Rubias and
Francisco was void because when the sale was made, Rubias
was the counsel of Francisco in a land registration case
involving the property in dispute.
Held: Yes, contract of sale was void.
Ratio:
The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his
client is categorically prohibited by Article 1491, and that
consequently, the purchase of the property in litigation from
his client was void and could produce no legal effect, by virtue
of Article 1409, par. 7, 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. Neither can the right to set up the defense of
illegality be waived.
The fundamental considerations of public policy is what
renders as void and inexistent such expressly prohibited
purchases in Article 1491 since the Civil Code states the
absolute nullity of contracts whose cause, object, or purpose
is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy or which are expressly prohibited or declared
void by law.
Dispositive: Order of dismissal is Affirmed.