Macariola v. Asuncion

TOPICS: Abrogation of political laws during a change of sovereignty; Political Law

FACTS: 

Petitioner, Macariola sought for the annulment of the project of partition approved by Judge Asuncion. The petition was dismissed and the partition has achieved its finality. 

Subsequently, Judge Asuncion acquired a portion of the lot  from Dr. Galapon, who earlier purchased the same from the heirs complained of by Macariola. 

Judge Asuncion was charged for having violated (1) Article 1491 of the New Civil Code when he acquired by purchase portion of a lot which was involved in a civil case decided by him; (2) Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Civil Service Rules, and the Canons of Judicial Ethics, when he associated himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as a stockholder and a ranking officer while he was a judge of the Court of First Instance.  

ISSUE: 

I. WON Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491 of the NCC.

II. WON Article 14 of the Code of Commerce is still in force. 

RULING:

I.

No, Judge Asuncion did not violate Article 1491 of the NCC. 

For the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. 

In this case, Judge Asuncion purchased the lot when the decision he rendered was already final. In fact, Judge Asuncion did not directly buy the lot from the heirs, but from Dr. Galapon, who earlier purchased it from the heirs. Hence, subsequent sale of the lot to Dr. Galapon and to Judge Asuncion took place after the finality of the decision in the project for partition.

Therefore, Judge Asuncion did not violate the prohibition on the purchase portion of a lot which was involved in a civil case decided by him.

II.

No, Judge Asuncion did not violate Article 14 of the Code of Commerce.

Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is 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

The Code of Commerce partakes of part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public officers and employees, like justices and judges. 

Therefore, Judge Asuncion did not violate Article 14 of the Code of Commerce.

--------- 

DISCUSSION:

Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory.

Political law embraces constitutional law, law of public corporations, administrative law including the law on public officers and elections.

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is 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.