FELIPE G. TAC-AN, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND ELEUTERIO ACOPIADO, MAXIMINO ACOPIADO, THE SPOUSES JESUS PAGHASIAN AND PILAR LIBETARIO, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioner, Felipe G. Tac-An, is a lawyer whose services were
engaged by the brothers Eleuterio Acopiado and Maximino Acopiado who
were accused of frustrated murder and theft of large cattle before the
Municipal Court of New Piñan, Zamboanga del Norte in March, 1960.

On April 4, 1960, Tac-An caused a document entitled, “Deed of Quitclaim”
to be thumb-marked by the Acopiado brothers whereby I for the sum of
P1,200.00 representing his fees as their lawyer in the criminal cases,
they conveyed to him a parcel of land with an area of three hectares.
The document was acknowledged before Notary Public Pacifico Cimafranca
on the same date who explained its contents to the Acopiados.

On April 6, 1960, or two days after the execution of the deed, the
Acopiados told Tac-An that they were terminating his services because
their wives and parents did not agree that the land be given to pay for
his services. They also said that they had hired another lawyer, a
relative, to defend them. But Tac-An continued to represent them.

In the case for frustrated murder, the Acopiados were acquitted. The
cases for theft of large cattle were dismissed due to the desistance of
the complainants.

On April 2, 1961, Eleuterio sold his share of the land previously
conveyed to Tac-An to Jesus Paghasian and Pilar Libetario but the latter
did not take possession thereof.

In June, 1964, Tac-An appointed Irineo Villejo, a barrio captain, as his
overseer in the land. On July 2, 1964, Tac-An also secured the
approval of the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Norte to the Deed
of Quitclaim. And on October 7, 1964, Tac-An filed a complaint against
the Acopiado brothers, Paghasian and Libetario in the CFI of Zamboanga
del Norte. He prayed that he be declared the owner of the land; that
the sale made in favor of Paghasian and Libetario be annulled; and that
he be paid damages, attorney’s fees,etc.

The Court of First Instance decided in favor of Tac-An whereupon the Acopiados, et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals voided the transfer of the land to Tac-An but held
that for his services in the criminal cases he was entitled to the
agreed upon amount of P1,200.00. The judgment of the Court of Appeals
reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and set
aside. In lieu thereof, another one is rendered ordering the defendants
Acopiados to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,200.00 with interest at a
legal rate from the date of the finality of this judgment until full
payment thereof. No pronouncement as to costs. ” (Rollo, pp. 40-41.)

Petitioner Tac-An prays that the decision of the Court of Appeals be set
aside and that the decision of the Court of First Instance be upheld
instead.

The petition is not impressed with merit.

The Court of Appeals found as a fact that the Acopiado brothers fully
understood the tenor of the Deed of Quitclaim which they executed. But
the Court of Appeals also found as a fact that the Acopiado brothers are
Non-Christians, more specifically Subanons, and that each is married to
a Subanon. And because they are Non-Christians, the Court of Appeals
applied Section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu
which reads as follows:

“Sec. 145. Contracts with Non-Christians requisites. –
Save and except contracts of sale or barter of personal property and
contracts of personal service comprehended in chapter seventeen hereof
no contract or agreement shall be made in the Department by any person
with any Moro or other non-Christian tribe or portion thereof the
Department or with any individual Moro or other non-Christian
inhabitants of the same for the payment or delivery of money or other
things of value in present or in prospective, or in the manner affecting
or relating to any real property, unless such contract or agreement be
executed and approved as follows:

x x x                                         x x x                             x x x

“(b) It shall be executed before a judge of a court of record,
justice or auxilliary justice of the peace, or notary public, and shall
bear the approval of the provincial governor wherein the same was
executed or his representative duly authorized in writing for such
purpose, indorsed upon it.”

It should be stated that under Section 146 of the same Code, contracts
or agreements made in violation of Sec. 145 shall be “null and void.”

It should be recalled that on July 2, 1964, Tac-An secured the approval
of the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Norte to the Deed of
Quitclaim and that should have satisfied the requirement of Sec. 145 of
the Administrative Code for Mindanao and Sulu. But it appears that on
April 12, 1965, while Tac-An’s suit was pending in the trial court, the
Governor of Zamboanga del Norte revoked his approval for the reasons
stated therein.

The petitioner now asserts that the revocation of the approval which had
been given by the Provincial Governor has no legal effect and cannot
affect his right to the land which had already vested. But as Justice
Conrado M. Vasquez, with Justices Mateo Canonoy and Ameurfina M. Herrera
concurring, said:

“The approval by Provincial Governor Felipe Azcuna appearing on
the face of the Deed of Quit­claim (Exh. “E”) made on July 2, 1964 may
no longer be relied upon by the plaintiff in view of the revocation
thereof by the same official on April 12, 1965 (Exh. 4). The revocation
was based on the ground that the signature of Governor Azcuna was
obtained thru a false representation to the effect that the alleged
transaction was legal and voluntary when in truth and in fact, as found
out later, the said parcel of land was the subject matter of a court
litigation; and, moreover, the non-Christian vendors were not brought
before him for interrogation, confirmation or ratification of the
alleged deed of quitclaim. The fact that the revocation was made after
the filing of instant action on October 10, 1964 does not vitiate the
aforesaid action of the Provincial Governor. Significantly, no attempt
was made to disprove the truth of the reasons stated in the certificate
of revocation (Exh. 4).” (Rollo, p. 37.)

The petitioner also argues that the Administrative Code of Mindanao and
Sulu was repealed on June 19, 1965 by Republic Act No. 4252, hence the
approval of the Provincial Governor became unnecessary. Suffice it to
say that at times material to the case, i. e. when the Deed of Quitclaim
was executed, when the approval by the Provincial Governor was given
and when the approval was revoked, Sections 145 and 146 of the
Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu were in full force and effect
and since they were substantive in nature the repealing statute cannot
be given retroactive effect. It should also be stated that the land in
question must be presumed to be conjugal in nature and since the spouses
of the Acopiado brothers did not consent to its transfer to the
petitioner, the transaction was at least voidable.

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be lacking in merit, the same is hereby dismissed with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Escolin, J., no part.