8/10/2019 CUI vs. CUI Case Digest

1/3

JESUS MA. CUI vs. ANTONIO MA. CUI, ROMULO CUIG.R. NO. L-18727AUGUST 31, 1964

FACTS:

Hospicio is a charitable institution established by thespouses Don Pedro Cui and DoaBenigna Cui, now deceased, "forthe care and support, free of charge, of indigent invalids, andincapacitated and helpless persons." It acuired corporatee!istence by legislation and endowed with e!tensive propertiesby the said spouses through a series of donations, principally thedeed of donation.#ection $ of %ct &o. '$'( gave the initial)anage)ent to the founders *ointly and, incase of theirincapacity or death, to "such persons as they )ay no)inate ordesignate, in the order prescribed to the)."Don Pedro Cui died

in +($, and his widow continued to ad)inister the Hospiciountil her death in +($(. -hereupon the ad)inistration passed toauricio Cui and Dionisio /a0osale) who both died. Dr. -eodoroCui, only son of auricio Cui, beca)e the ad)inistrator.Plainti1

/esus a. Cui and defendant %ntonio a. Cui are brothers,being the sons of ariano Cui, one of the nephews of thespouses Don Pedro Cui and Doa Benigna Cui. 2n $3 4ebruary+(5 the then incu)bent ad)inistrator, Dr. -eodoro Cui, resignedin favor of %ntonio a. Cui pursuant to a "convenio" entered into

between the) and e)bodied in a notarial docu)ent. -he ne!tday, $6 4ebruary, %ntonio a. Cui too0 his oath of o7ce. /esusa. Cui, however, had no prior notice of either the "convenio" orof his brother8s assu)ption of the position.Dr. -eodoro Cui diedon %ugust $3, +(59 on #ept :, +(5 the plainti1 wrote aletter tothe defendant de)anding that the o7ce be turned overto hi)9 and the de)and not having been co)plied with theplainti1 ;led the co)plaint in this case. aws fro) the ?niversityof #anto -o)as @Class+($A but is not a )e)ber of the Bar, nothaving passed the e!a)inations to ualify hi) as one. %ntonio

8/10/2019 CUI vs. CUI Case Digest

2/3

a. Cui, on the other hand, is a )e)ber of the Bar and althoughdisbarred by this Court, he was reinstated by resolutionpro)ulgated on +5 4ebruary+(5, about two wee0s before heassu)ed the position of ad)inistrator of the Hospiciode Barili.

C o u r ta quo decided in favor of the plainti1, said that the phrase"titulo de abogado,"ta0en alone, )eans that of a fulledgedlawyer, but that has used in the deed of donation and consideringthe function or purpose of the ad)inistrator, it should not begiven astrict interpretation but a liberal one," and therefore)eans a law degree or diplo)a of Bachelor of >aws. -his ruling is

assailed as erroneous both by the defendant and by theintervenor.

ISSUE: 2& the plainti1 is not entitled, as against thedefendant, to the o7ce of ad)inistrator. @E#A

RATIO:hether ta0en alone or in conte!t the ter) "titulo de

abogado" )eans not )ere possession of the acade)ic degree of

Bachelor of >aws but )e)bership in the Bar after due ad)issionthereto, ualifying one for the practice of law. % Bachelor8s degreealone, conferred by a law school upon co)pletion of certainacade)ic reuire)ents, does not entitle its holder to e!ercise thelegal profession. -he English euivalent of "abogado" is lawyer orattorneyatlaw. -his ter) has a ;!ed and general signi;cation,and has reference to that class of persons who are by licenseo7cers of the courts, e)powered to appear, prosecute anddefend, and upon who) peculiar duties, responsibilities andliabilities are devolved by law as a conseuence. In this

*urisdiction ad)ission to the Bar and to the practice of law isunder the authority of the #upre)e Court. %ccording to

8/10/2019 CUI vs. CUI Case Digest

3/3

allowed to ta0e the Bar e!a)inations and to ualify as lawyers.@#ection +G of that code reuired possession of "the necessaryuali;cations of learning ability."A et certainly it would beincorrect to say that such persons do not possess the "titulo de

abogado" because they lac0 the acade)ic degree of Bachelorof >aws fro) so)e law school or university. -he founders of theHospicio de #an /ose de Barili )ust have established theforegoing test advisely, and provided in the deed of donation thatif not a lawyer, the ad)inistrator should be a doctor or a civilengineer or a phar)acist, in that order9 or failing all these, shouldbe the one who pays the highest ta!es a)ong those otherwiseuali;ed.% lawyer, ;rst of all, because under %ct &o. '$'( the )anagers ortrustees of the Hospicio shall ")a0e regulations for the

govern)ent of said institution9 shall "prescribe the conditionssub*ect to which invalids and incapacitated and destitute persons)ay be ad)itted to the institute"9 shall see to it that the rulesand conditions pro)ulgated for ad)ission are not in conict withthe provisions of the %ct9 and shall ad)inister properties ofconsiderable value for all of which wor0, it is to be presu)ed, awor0ing 0nowledge of the law and a license to practice theprofession would be a distinct asset. ?nder this particular criterionwe hold that the plainti1 is not entitled, as against the defendant,

to the o7ce of ad)inistrator. %s far as )oral character isconcerned, the standard reuired of one see0ing reinstate)ent tothe o7ce of attorney cannot be less e!acting than that i)plied inparagraph ' of the deed of donation as a reuisite for the o7cewhich is disputed in this case. hen the defendant was restoredto the roll of lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resulting fro)his previous disbar)ent were wiped out. 4or the clai) ofintervener and appellant