Macariola v.

Asuncion
6 GR Number: Ponente: J.
May 31, 1982 AM No. 133-J Makasiar
Anna Veluz
Petitioners: Respondents:
Bernardita Macariola Hon. Elias B. Asuncion
Doctrine:
Although Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code prohibits justices, judges among others from acquiring by purchase
the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court, the SC has ruled,
however, that for the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during
the pendency of the litigation involving the property.

Facts:
1. This case stemmed from a civil case where the Reyes siblings filed a complaint for
partition against Macariola, concerning the properties left by their common father,
Francisco Reyes. Asuncion was the judge who rendered the decision, which became
final for lack of an appeal. A project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion after
the finality of the decision. This project of partition was only signed by the counsel of the
parties, who assured the judge that they were given authorization to do so.
2. One of the properties in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was subdivided into
5 lots. One of these lots (Lot 1184-D) was sold to Anota, a stenographer of the court,
while another (Lot 1184-E) was sold to Dr. Galapon, who later on sold a portion of the
same lot to Judge Asuncion and his wife.
3. A year after, spouses Asuncion and Dr. Galapon sold their shares of the questioned lot to
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, where respondent Judge and his wife
were both stockholders, with respondent as President and his wife as secretary of said
company.
4. A year after the company’s registration with the SEC, Macariola filed a complaint against
Judge Asuncion alleging that he violated Art. 1491 (5) of the Civil Code ​in acquiring a
portion of the lot, which was one of those properties involved in the partition case; and
that he violated Art 14 (1 and 5) of the Code of Commerce, Sec 3 (H) of RA 3019, Sec
12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
by associating himself with a private company while he was a judge of the CFI of Leyte.
5. This case was referred to Justice Palma of the CA for investigation, report and
recommendation. After hearing, the said Investigating Justice recommended that Judge
Asuncion should be reprimanded or warned in connection with the complaints filed
against him.
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. W/N Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code. 1. NO.
RULING:

● Although Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code prohibits justices, judges among others from acquiring by
purchase the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court, the SC
has ruled, however, that the prohibition only applies to the sale or assignment of the property
when done during the pendency of the litigation involving the property.
● In this case, when Judge Asuncion purchased a portion of Lot 1184-E, the decision in the partition
case was already final because none of the parties filed an appeal within the reglementary period.
Thus, the lot in question was no longer subject of the litigation.
● Judge Asuncion did not buy the lot directly from the plaintiffs in the partition case but from Dr.
Galapon, who earlier purchased the lot from the plaintiffs. The subsequent sale from Dr. Galapon
to Judge Asuncion was also said not be a scheme to conceal the illegal and unethical transfer of
said lot as a consideration for the approval of the project of partition.
● As pointed out by the Investigating Justice, since there is no evidence showing that Dr. Galapon
acted as a mere dummy of Judge Asuncion. In fact, Dr. Galapon appeared to be a respectable
citizen, credible and sincere, having bought the subject lot in good faith and for valuable
consideration, without any intervention of Judge Asuncion.
● Although Judge Asuncion did NOT violate Art 1491 (5) of the Civil Code, it was IMPROPER for
him to have acquired the lot in question. Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that
judges’ official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety. It was unwise and
indiscreet on the part of Judge Asuncion to have purchased the property that was or had been in
litigation in his court and caused it to be transferred to a corporation of which he and his wife were
ranking officers at the time of such transfer. His actuations must not cause doubt and mistrust in
the uprightness of his administration of justice
§