G.R. No. L-38736 May 21, 1984
FELIPE G. TAC-AN, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ELEUTERIO ACOPIADO, MAXIMINO ACOPIADO, the SPOUSES JESUS PAGHASIAN and PILAR LIBETARIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felipe G. Tac-An, a lawyer, was engaged in March 1960 by brothers Eleuterio and Maximino Acopiado to defend them in criminal cases for frustrated murder and theft. On April 4, 1960, Tac-An had the brothers execute a “Deed of Quitclaim,” thumb-marked by them, conveying to him a three-hectare parcel of land in consideration of his legal fees amounting to P1,200. The document was notarized. Two days later, the Acopiados informed Tac-An they were terminating his services due to family disapproval of the land conveyance, but he continued to represent them. The brothers were acquitted in the murder case, and the theft cases were dismissed.
Subsequently, Eleuterio sold his share of the same land to spouses Jesus Paghasian and Pilar Libetario. Tac-An, having appointed an overseer for the land, secured the Provincial Governor’s approval of the Deed of Quitclaim on July 2, 1964. He later filed a complaint to assert his ownership and annul the subsequent sale. The Court of First Instance ruled in his favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Deed of Quitclaim, conveying land as payment for legal services to the Acopiado brothers, is valid and enforceable.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the transfer void. The legal logic rests on the application of Section 145 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, which was in full force at all material times. This provision mandates that contracts affecting real property, entered into with non-Christian inhabitants of the Department, must be executed before specified officials and bear the approval of the provincial governor; otherwise, under Section 146, they are null and void. The Court found as fact that the Acopiado brothers are Subanons, a non-Christian tribe, making this special law applicable.
While Tac-An belatedly obtained the provincial governor’s approval on July 2, 1964, this approval was validly revoked on April 12, 1965, during the pendency of the suit. The revocation was based on grounds that the approval was obtained through misrepresentation regarding the legality and voluntariness of the transaction and that the vendors were not personally interrogated. The Court affirmed that this revocation was within the governor’s authority and rendered the initial approval ineffective. The subsequent repeal of the Administrative Code by Republic Act No. 4252 in 1965 could not retroactively validate the contract, as the repealed provisions were substantive in nature. Consequently, the Deed of Quitclaim was void for non-compliance with a mandatory statutory requirement designed to protect non-Christians from exploitation. The Court also noted the land was presumably conjugal, and the lack of spousal consent rendered the transaction at least voidable. The petition was dismissed.