Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9K views

    Macariola Vs Asuncion - Digested

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    Bernardita Macariola charged Judge Elias Asuncion with acts unbecoming a judge for acquiring a portion of property that had been subject to a partition case over which Judge Asuncion presided. The Supreme Court held that Judge Asuncion did not violate laws prohibiting judges from acquiring property involved in cases over which they presided. The decision in the partition case was final over a year before Judge Asuncion's purchase. Additionally, Judge Asuncion purchased the property from someone who had acquired it after the case, not directly from parties to the original case. Therefore, Judge Asuncion's actions did not constitute acts unbecoming a judge.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Macariola Vs Asuncion - Digested

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    9K views2 pages
    Bernardita Macariola charged Judge Elias Asuncion with acts unbecoming a judge for acquiring a portion of property that had been subject to a partition case over which Judge Asuncion presided. The Supreme Court held that Judge Asuncion did not violate laws prohibiting judges from acquiring property involved in cases over which they presided. The decision in the partition case was final over a year before Judge Asuncion's purchase. Additionally, Judge Asuncion purchased the property from someone who had acquired it after the case, not directly from parties to the original case. Therefore, Judge Asuncion's actions did not constitute acts unbecoming a judge.

    Original Title

    Macariola vs Asuncion - Digested

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Bernardita Macariola charged Judge Elias Asuncion with acts unbecoming a judge for acquiring a portion of property that had been subject to a partition case over which Judge Asuncion presided. The Supreme Court held that Judge Asuncion did not violate laws prohibiting judges from acquiring property involved in cases over which they presided. The decision in the partition case was final over a year before Judge Asuncion's purchase. Additionally, Judge Asuncion purchased the property from someone who had acquired it after the case, not directly from parties to the original case. Therefore, Judge Asuncion's actions did not constitute acts unbecoming a judge.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    9K views2 pages

    Macariola Vs Asuncion - Digested

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Gwapo
    Bernardita Macariola charged Judge Elias Asuncion with acts unbecoming a judge for acquiring a portion of property that had been subject to a partition case over which Judge Asuncion presided. The Supreme Court held that Judge Asuncion did not violate laws prohibiting judges from acquiring property involved in cases over which they presided. The decision in the partition case was final over a year before Judge Asuncion's purchase. Additionally, Judge Asuncion purchased the property from someone who had acquired it after the case, not directly from parties to the original case. Therefore, Judge Asuncion's actions did not constitute acts unbecoming a judge.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    MACARIOLA VS.

    ASUNCION
    114 SCRA 77

    FACTS:
    1. Judge Elias Asuncion was the presiding Judge in Civil Case No. 3010 for
    partition.
    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. 5
    of 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,
    respondent’s 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.

    You might also like