Macariola vs. Asuncion, A.M. No.

133-J, May 31 1982, 114 SCRA 77

Bernardita Macariola vs. Judge Elias Asuncion of CFI Leyte

A.M. No. 133-J, May 31 1982, 114 SCRA 77

FACTS:
In 1963, Macariola and her step sister (Reyes) 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 in 1963 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.

Page 1 of 2
The Supreme Court however admonished Judge Asuncion to be more discreet in his personal
transactions.

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
became final for lack of an appeal.4. On October 16, 1963 a project of partition was submitted to Judge
Asuncion which he approved in an Order dated October 23, 1963, later amended on November 11,
1963.5. On March 6, 1965, a portion of lot 1184-E, one of the properties subject to partition under
Civil Case No. 3010, was acquired by purchase by respondent Macariola and his wife, who were major
stockholders of Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc.,6. Bernardita Macariola thus
charged Judge Asuncion of the CFI of Leyte, now Associate 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 or assignment of the property which
is the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified therein. The Supreme Court held that for the
prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment must take place during the pendency of the litigation
involving the property. In the case at bar, when respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a
portion of lot 1184-E, the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was
already final because none of the parties filed an appeal within the reglementary period hence, the
lot in question was no longer subject of litigation. Moreover at the time of the sale on March 6, 1965,
respondents order date October 23, 1963 and the amended order dated November 11, 1963
approving the October 16, 1963 project of partition made pursuant to the June 8, 1963 decision, had
long been final for there was 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.
Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased on July 31, 1964 Lot 1184-E from three of the plaintiffs after
the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010. Consequently, the sale of a portion of Lot 1184-E to
respondent Judge having taken 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 not during 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 on from the United States to the
Republic of the Philippines, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated
because where there is a change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether
compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are
expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign

Page 2 of 2