MACARIOLA VS.

ASUNCION114 SCRA 77FACTS:

1. Judge Elias Asuncion was the presiding Judge in
Civil Case No. 3010 forpartition.
2. Among the parties thereto was Bernardita R.
Macariola.
3. On June 8, 1863 respondent Judge rendered a
decision, which becamefinal for lack of an appeal.
4. On October 16, 1963 a project of partition was
submitted to JudgeAsuncion which he approved in
an Order dated October 23, 1963, lateramended
on November 11, 1963
.5. On March 6, 1965, a portion of lot 1184-E, one
of the properties subject topartition under Civil
Case No. 3010, was acquired by purchase by
respondentMacariola and his wife, who were
major stockholders of TradersManufacturing and
Fishing Industries Inc.,
6. Bernardita Macariola thus charged Judge
Asuncion of the CFI of Leyte, nowAssociate Justice
of the Court of Appeals with acts unbecoming of
a judge.
7. Macariola alleged that Asuncion violated ,
among others, Art. 1491, par. 5of the New Civil
Code and Article 14 of the Code of Commerce.
ISSUE:
Is the actuation of Judge Asuncion in acquiring by
purchase a portion of property in a Civil Case
previously handled by him an act unbecoming of
a Judge?
HELD:
Article 1491 , par. 5 of the New Civil Code applies
only to the sale orassignment of the property
which is the subject of litigation to the

personsdisqualified therein. The Supreme Court

held that for the prohibition tooperate, the sale or
assignment must take place during the pendency
of thelitigation involving the property.In the case
at bar, when respondent Judge purchased on
March 6, 1965 aportion of lot 1184-E, the decision
in Civil Case No. 3010 which he renderedon June
8, 1963 was already final because none of the
parties filed an appealwithin the reglementary
period hence, the lot in question was no
longersubject of litigation. Moreover at the time
of the sale on March 6, 1965,respondents order
date October 23, 1963 and the amended order
datedNovember 11, 1963 approving the October
16, 1963 project of partition

made pursuant to the June 8, 1963 decision, had

long been final for therewas no appeal from said
orders.Furthermore, respondent Judge did not buy
the lot in question on March 6,1965 directly from
the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr.
ArcadioGalapon who earlier purchased on July 31,
1964 Lot 1184-E from three of theplaintiffs after
the finality of the decision in Civil Case No.
3010.Consequently, the sale of a portion of Lot
1184-E to respondent Judge havingtaken place
over one year after the finality of the decision in
Civil Case No.3010 as well as the two orders
approving the project of partition, and notduring
the pendency of the litigation, there was no
violation of paragraph 5,Article 1491 of the New
Civil Code.Upon the transfer of sovereignty from
Spain to the United States and later onfrom the
United States to the Republic of the Philippines,
Art. 14 of the Codeof Commerce must be deemed
to have been abrogated because where thereis a
change of sovereignty , the political laws of the
former sovereign ,whether compatible or not with
those of the new sovereign, areautomatically
abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted
by affirmativeact of the new sovereign