Macariola v. Asuncion, A.M. No.

133-J, 31 May 1982

Makasiar, J.

Facts:

Judge Elias Asuncion was the presiding Judge in Civil Case No. 3010 for partition, which involved Bernardita R.
Macariola among other parties. Respondent Judge issued a decision in the case, which became final as there was
no appeal made. Subsequently, a project of partition was presented to Judge Asuncion. Later on, a portion of one
of the properties under the partition in Civil Case No. 3010 was purchased by respondent Macariola and his wife,
who were significant shareholders of Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. Bernardita Macariola
accused Judge Asuncion, now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, of "acts unbecoming of a judge."
Macariola alleged that Asuncion had violated, among others, Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code.

Issue/s:

Whether or not Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code.

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 the respondent Judge purchased a portion of the subject lot, the decision in Civil Case No.
3010 was already final. Moreover, the respondent Judge did not buy the lot in question directly from the plaintiffs
in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased the lot from three of the plaintiffs after
the finality of the decision.

Consequently, the sale of a portion of lot to the 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.