PLM College of Law

Trisha Jane Magundayao

Case Name Cui v. Cui

Petitioner/s Antonio Ma Cui

Respondent/s Jesus Ma. Cui and Romulo Cui

Topic The Bar

Case No. | Date G.R. No. L-18727 | Aug. 31, 1964

Nature of the Case Quo Warranto

Ponente MAKALINTAL, J

Doctrine (The legal question determined by the Court. In layman’s term, the main point of
the ratio decidendi relevant to the topic under the syllabus.)

RELEVANT FACTS

 The Hospicio is a charitable institution established by spouses Don Pedro Cui and Dona
Benigna Cui for the sole purpose of caring and helping those helpless persons.
 The institution acquired a corporate existence by legislation through At 3239 and through
sect 2 of Act no 3239, in case of their incapacity or death, they may nominate or designate
persons provided that: they are legitimate descendants of Mariano Cui, Mauricio Cui,
Viente Cui y Victor Cui or possessed titulo de abogada, medico, ingeniero civil or
farmaceutico;
 Teodoro Cui (son of Mauricio Cui) become the administrator but turnover the administration
to Antonio Ma Cui (son of Mariano Cui) pursuant to the convenio they agreed upon. Antonio
Cui took his oath without Jesus Ma Cui’s knowledge.
 Jesus and Antonio Cui were brothers wherein the former holds a degree of Bachelor of
Laws but not a member of the Bar while the latter is a member of the Bar and although
disbarred by the court due to immorality and unprofessional conduct had been reinstated.
 Upon learning what happened, Jesus Ma. Cui wrote a letter to the respondent demanding to
turn over to him the position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose De Barili. Jesus Ma.
Cui filed a complaint against Antonio Cui when the latter did not comply. On the other hand,
Romulo Cui is also a lawyer and invoked that the next in line of the next administrator should
belong to the line of Vicente Cui.
 The hospicio is a charitable institution established by spouses Don Pedro Cui and Dona
Benigna Cui for the sole purpose of caring and helping those helpless persons. The
institution acquired a corporate existence by legislation through Act 3239 and through sect 2
of Act no 3239, in case of their incapacity or death, they may nominate or designate
persons provided that: they are legitimate descendants of Mariano Cui, Mauricio Cui,
Viente Cui y Victor Cui or possessed titulo de abogada, medico, ingeniero civil or
 farmaceutico. Teodoro Cui (son of Mauricio Cui) become the administrator but turnover the
administration to Antonio Ma Cui (son of Mariano Cui) pursuant to the convenio they agreed
upon. Antonio Cui took his oath without Jesus Ma Cui’s knowledge. Jesus and Antonio Cui
were brothers wherein the former holds a degree of Bachelor of Laws but not a member of
the Bar while the latter is a member of the Bar and although disbarred by the court due to
immorality and unprofessional conduct had been reinstated. Upon learning what happened,
Jesus Ma. Cui wrote a letter to the respondent demanding to turn over to him the position of
administrator of Hospicio de San Jose De Barili. Jesus Ma. Cui filed a complaint against
Antonio Cui when the latter did not comply. On the other hand, Romulo Cui is also a lawyer
and invoked that the next in line of the next administrator should belong to the line of Vicente
Cui.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue #1 – Whether or not the term "titulo de abogado" means not mere possession of the academic
degree of Bachelor of Laws but membership in the Bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one
for the practice of law? NO

The Court of First Instance favored Jesus Ma Cui that is why Antonio Cui petition a quo warranto.

Rule 138 provides that:

A bachelor’s degree alone does not entitle its holder to exercise the legal profession while the English
equivalent of “abogado” is lawyer or attorney at law. Bachelor of Laws in itself has little to do with
admission to the Bar. Although Antonio Ma. Cusi was disbarred for immorality and unprofessional
conduct, it is also a fact that he was reinstated two weeks before he assumed the office of administrator.
Now for the claim of intervenor and appellant Romulo Cui, although the intention of the deed was to
confer by line and succession, this interpretation, however, is not justified by the terms of the deed of
donation.

RULING

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the judgment appealed from is reversed and set
aside, and the complaint as well as the complaint in intervention are dismissed, with costs equally against
plaintiff-appellee and intervenor-appellant.