MACARIOLA VS. ASUNCION

-


MACARIOLA VS. ASUNCION

A.M. No. 133-J. May 31, 1982. 

Bernadita R. Macariola, Complainant, Vs. Hon. Elias B. Asuncion, Respondent.


Nature: Political law as a branch of public law that deals with the organizations and operations of the governmental organ of the state and defines the relations of the state to its inhabitants.

Facts:

1. Macariola and her step sisters had a dispute over their inheritance concerning a parcel of land left by the deceased father. 

2. Macariola was the only offspring of the first marriage and that others are on the second marriage except one who is an illegitimate child. 

3. There are properties that are belonging to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage and there are in the second marriage, and there is belonging exclusively to the deceased father. 

4. Judge Asuncion determined that the parties are legible for the inheritance. 

5. The parties of the case submitted a project partition reflecting their preference. 

6. Judge Asuncion approved the project partition and the decision became final on October 23, 1963. 

7. Reyes ET. Al. sold some of their shares to Dr. Galapon. Lot. 1184-E 

8. Dr. Galapon and his spouse sold a portion of this lot to Judge Asuncion and to his spouse for taxation purposes in 1965. 

9. Galapon spouse and Asuncion spouse conveyed their shares in the said lot to the incorporation where Asuncion is the president. 

10. Macariola then filed an instant complaint dated 1968 alleging Judge Asuncion violated: 

a. Art. 1491 par. 5 of the new civil code by acquiring the portion of lot 1184-E which was one of the properties involved in a civil case decided by him. 

b. Art. 14 par. I and 5 of the code of commerce, Anti-graft and corrupt practices act by associating himself with the incorporation above mentioned while he is a judge of the court of first instance of Leyte. 

Issue: Whether or not, Judge Asuncion violated these provisions?

Held:

1. No. (Art. 1491 enumerated the list of people who cannot acquire certain properties…that justices, judges…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 position.) The prohibition applies only to the sale or assignment of the property which is subject of litigation…it applies if the litigation is under pendency. Judge bought the property 2 years after his final decision. Also the judge did not buy the property directly from any of the parties. It was sold for tax purposes and that not showing that Galapon is served as a dummy of Asuncion. 

2. No. Because there is no showing that respondent participated or intervened in his official capacity in the business or transactions of the incorporation in which his participation is obviously no relation with his judicial office. The code of commerce which is part of commercial laws of the Philippines, partakes of the nature of political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public officers and employees. It may be recalled that political law embraces administrative law and the other four. Article 14 of the code of commerce partakes more on administrative law for it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to engaging in business, hence, political in essence. And to note code of commerce is the Spanish code of commerce of 1885 and as we changed our sovereignty from Spain to U.S and U.S to the republic of the Philippines, and article 14 must be deemed abrogated because when there is a change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign are automatically abrogated. Political laws principle depends on the system of government of the one that implements it. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

GOCHAN vs. YOUNG

-
  VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN , FELIX Y. GOCHAN III, MAEGOCHANEFANN, LOUISE Y. GOCHAN, ESTEBAN Y.GOCHAN, JR., DOMINIC Y. GOCHAN, FELIX O. GOCHAN III,MERCEDES R. GOCHAN, ALFREDO R. GOCHAN, ANGELINAR. GOCHAN-HERNAEZ, MARIA MERCED R. GOCHAN,CRISPO R. GOCHAN, JR., MARION R. GOCHAN, MACTANREALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and FELIXGOCHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION, petitioners, vs.  RICHARD G. YOUNG , DAVID G. YOUNG, JANE G. YOUNG-LLABAN, JOHN D. YOUNG, JR., MARY G. YOUNG-HSU andALEXANDER THOMAS G. YOUNG as heirs of Alice Gochan; theINTESTATE ESTATE OF JOHN D. YOUNG, SR.; and CECILIA GOCHAN-UY and MIGUEL C. UY, for themselves and on behalf and for the benefit of FELIX GOCHAN & SONS REALTYCORPORATION, respondents. G.R. No. 131889. March 12, 2001. PANGANIBAN, J. Topic:  Piercing the veil of corporate fiction Principles/Doctrines:  The notion of corporate entity will be pierced or disregarded and the individuals composing it will be treated as identical if the corporate entity is...
Read more

ARNOLD HALL vs. PICCIO

-
ARNOLD HALL  and BRADLEY P. HALL, petitioners, vs. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO , Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, FRED BROWN, EMMA BROWN, HIPOLITA CAPUCIONG, in his capacity as receiver of the Far Eastern Lumber and Commercial Co., Inc., respondents. G.R. No. L-2598. June 29, 1950. BENGZON, J.   Topic:  Classification of Corporation as to Legal Status. De Facto Corporation   FACTS:   The petitioners  C. Arnold Hall and Bradley P. Hall, and the respondents  Fred Brown, Emma Brown, Hipolita D. Chapman and Ceferino S. Abella, signed and acknowledged in Leyte , the article of incorporation of the Far Eastern Lumber and Commercial Co., Inc. , organized to engage in a general lumber business to carry on as general contractors, operators and managers.   Immediately after the execution of said articles of incorporation, the corporation proceeded to do business with the adoption of by-laws and the election of its officers.  On December 2, 1947, th...
Read more

PEO-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC AND ELAMPARO

-
POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC AND ELAMPARO G.R.NO. 221697. MARCH 2016 FACTS: Grace Poe was found in a church in Iloilo sometime in 1968. The children of the who found her reported the incident before the Local Civil Registrar. It was named as Mary Grace Militar. She was subsequently adopted by Fernando Peo Jr. and Susan Roces sometime in 1974. In year 2006, a Certificate of Live Birth in the name of Mary Grace Poe was issued by the Civil Registrar of Iloilo. At the age oof 18 Poe was registered as a voter of San Juan. She married to Teodoro Llamanzares and flew to U.S.A after the wedding. In 2001, Poe became naturalized American Citizen. In 2004, Peo come back to the Philippines to support her father’s candidacy. She then returned to U.S. After learning of her father’s deteriorating condition, Poe returned within the same year. Because she wanted to be with her grieving mother, she and her husband decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippine in year 2005....
Read more