G.R. No.

173188 January 15, 2014

THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHP O! THE SPOUSES "CENTE CA#A"E#O AN#
$ENTA ARCO%&CA#A"E#O '(o)* +,-,a.,+/, .u(.)0)u),+ (y )*,0r *,0r.,
na1,2y3 HER4NA, PASTORA, H,0r. o5 !RUCTUOSA, H,0r. o5 RA6UEL,
E"ANGELNE, "CENTE, JR., an+ AR4AN#O, a22 .urna1,+ CA#A"E#O,
P,)0)0on,r., 7.. "CTORNO '"C/ T. LACA%A, 1arr0,+ )o Ro.a L,8a+o.,
R,.9on+,n)..
!ACTS3
The Spouses Cadavedo acquired a homestead grant over a 230,765-square meter
parcel of land no!n as "ot 5#$5 %su&'ect lot( located in )uma*, +i,an, -am&oanga
del .orte/ The* !ere issued 0omestead +atent .o/ 1-$5#$# on 2arch $3, $353and
4riginal Certi5cate of Title .o/ +-376 on 6ul* 2, $353/4n 7pril30, $355, the spouses
Cadavedo sold the su&'ect lot to the spouses 1icente 7mes and 2artha 8ernande9
%the spouses 7mes( Transfer Certi5cate of Title %TCT( .o/ T-#732 !as su&sequentl*
issued in the name of the spouses 7mes/
The present controvers* arose !hen the spouses Cadavedo 5led an action &efore
the :TC against the spouses 7mes for sum of mone* and;or voiding of contract of
sale of homestead after the latter failed to pa* the &alance of the purchase price/
The spouses Cadavedo initiall* engaged the services of 7tt*/ :osendo <andal !ho,
for health reasons, later !ithdre! from the case= he !as su&stituted &* 7tt*/
"aca*a/
4n 8e&ruar* 2#, $363, 7tt*/ "aca*a amended the complaint to assert the nullit* of
the sale and the issuance of TCT .o/ T-#732 in the names of the spouses 7mes as
gross violation of the pu&lic land la!/ The amended complaint stated that the
spouses Cadavedo hired 7tt*/ "aca*a on a contingenc* fee &asis/ The contingenc*
fee stipulation speci5call* reads>
10. That due to the above circumstances, the plaintifs were forced to hire a lawyer
on contingent basis and if they become the prevailing parties in the case at bar,
they will pay the sum of P2,000.00 for attorneys fees.
?ventuall* 7tt*/"aca*a represented the Cadavedo spouses @ t!o other cases in
connection !ith the su&'ect lot/
4n appeal to the C7 the appellate court granted attorne*As fee consisting of one-
half or $0/53B3 hectares of the su&'ect lot to 7tt*/ "aca*a, instead of con5rming the
agreed contingent attorne*As fees of C2,000/00
SSUE3
Dhether or not the a!ard &* the C7 of attore*Es fees is valid/
HEL#3
.o/
The agreement on attorne*As fee consisting of one-half of the su&'ect lot is void= the
petitioners are entitled to recover possession/ The !ritten agreement providing for a
contingent fee of +2,000/00 should prevail over the oral agreement providing for
one- half of the su&'ect lot/
7tt*/ "aca*aAs acquisition of the one-half portion contravenes 7rticle $#3$ %5( of the
Civil Code
7rticle $#3$ %5( of the Civil Code for&ids la!*ers from acquiring, &* purchase or
assignment, the propert* that has &een the su&'ect of litigation in !hich the* have
taen part &* virtue of their profession/32 The same proscription is provided under
:ule $0 of the Canons of +rofessional ?thics/33
7 thing is in litigation if there is a contest or litigation over it in court or !hen it is
su&'ect of the 'udicial action/3# 8ollo!ing this de5nition, !e 5nd that the su&'ect lot
!as still in litigation !hen 7tt*/ "aca*a acquired the disputed one-half portion/ De
note in this regard the follo!ing esta&lished facts>%$(on Septem&er 2$, $3B$, 7tt*/
"aca*a 5led a motion for the issuance of a !rit of eFecution in Civil Case .o/ $72$=
%2( on Septem&er 23, $3B$, the spouses 7mes 5led Civil Case .o/ 3352 against the
spouses Cadavedo= %3(on 4cto&er $6, $3B$, the :TC granted the motion 5led for the
issuance of a !rit of eFecution in Civil Case .o/ $72$ and the spouses Cadavedo
too possession of the su&'ect lot on 4cto&er 2#, $3B$= %#( soon after, the su&'ect
lot !as surve*ed and su&divided into t!o equal portions, and 7tt*/ "aca*a too
possession of one of the su&divided portions= and %5( on 2a* $3, $3B2, 1icente and
7tt*/ "aca*a eFecuted the compromise agreement/