You are on page 1of 1

JAMIELYN B.

DILIDILI-TABIRARA
MACARIOLA VS. ASUNCION, A.M. No. 133-J, 31 MAY 1982
FACTS:
In 1963, Macariola and her step-sister had a dispute over their inheritance involving parcels of
land located in Leyte. A trial ensued and Judge Macariola, after determining the legibility of the
parties to inherit rendered a decision in the civil case. Thereafter, the counsels of the parties
submitted a project partition reflecting the preference of the parties. The project partition was,
however, unsigned by Macariola. But her lawyer assured Asuncion that he is duly authorized by
Macariola as counsel. The judge then approved the project partition. The decision became final
in1963 as well.
Reyes et al sold some of their shares to Arcadio Galapon, who later sold the property to judge
Asuncion in 1965.
On 6 Aug 1968, Macariola filed a complaint against Judge Asuncion with acts unbecoming a
judge on the ground that he bought a property (formerly owned by Macariola) which was
involved in a civil case decided by him; this act by Asuncion is averred by Macariola to be
against Art. 1491, par 5 of the Civil Code which provides:
"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:
xxx

xxx

xxx

(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".
Also, Macariola said that Asuncions act tainted his earlier judgment. Macariola said that the
project partition was unsigned by her and that what was given to her in the partition were
insignificant portions of the parcels of land.
ISSUE:Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated said provision.
HELD:No. The prohibition only applies if the litigation is under pendency. The judge bought the
property in 1965 2 years after his decision became final. Further, Asuncion did not buy the
property directly from any of the parties since the property was directly bought by Galapon, who
then sold the property to Asuncion. There was no showing that Galapon acted as a dummy of
Asuncion.
Also, Macariola did not show proof that there was a gross inequality in the partition; or that what
she got were insignificant portions of the land.
The Supreme Court however admonished Judge Asuncion to be more discreet in his personal
transactions.

You might also like