Scribd
Upload
72 views1 page

Cui V Cui

1) This case involves two brothers, Jesus and Antonio Cui, competing for the position of administrator of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, a charitable institution established by their ancestors to care for the indigent. 2) While Jesus is the older brother, the deed of donation establishing the Hospicio prefers that the administrator be a lawyer, doctor, civil engineer or pharmacist. 3) Antonio holds a law degree and is a practicing lawyer, having been reinstated after a prior disbarment. Jesus only holds a law degree but is not a member of the bar. 4) Therefore, the court ruled that Antonio was the preferred candidate as administrator since he meets the criteria

Uploaded by

Jakie Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views1 page

Cui V Cui

1) This case involves two brothers, Jesus and Antonio Cui, competing for the position of administrator of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, a charitable institution established by their ancestors to care for the indigent. 2) While Jesus is the older brother, the deed of donation establishing the Hospicio prefers that the administrator be a lawyer, doctor, civil engineer or pharmacist. 3) Antonio holds a law degree and is a practicing lawyer, having been reinstated after a prior disbarment. Jesus only holds a law degree but is not a member of the bar. 4) Therefore, the court ruled that Antonio was the preferred candidate as administrator since he meets the criteria

Uploaded by

Jakie Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CUI V.

CUI

Facts:
The Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, is a charitable institution established by the spouses Don Pedro Cui and
Dona Benigna Cui for the care and support, free of charge, of indigent invalids, and incapacitated and helpless
persons.” It acquired corporate existence by legislation (Act No. 3239). Sec. 2 of the Act gave the initial management
to the founders jointly and, in case of their incapacity or death, to “such persons as they may nominate or designate,
in the order prescribed to them. (embodied in Sec. 2 of the spouses deed of donation)”
Plaintiff Jesus Ma. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. Cui are brothers, being the sons of Mariano Cui, one of
the nephews of the spouses Don Pedro and Dona Benigna Cui. In 1960, the then incumbent administrator of the
Hospicio, resigned in favor of Antonio Cui pursuant to a “convenio” entered into between them that was embodied on
a notarial document. Jesus Cui, however had no prior notice of either the “convenio” or of his brother’s assumption of
the position.
Upon the death of Dr. Teodoro Cui, Jesus Cui wrote a letter to his brother Antonio, demanding that the office
be turned over to him. When the demand was not complied, Jesus filed this case. Lower court ruled in favor of Jesus.

ISSUE
Who is best qualified as administrator for the Hospicio?

HELD
Antonio should be the Hospicio’s administrator.
Jesus is the older of the two and under equal circumstances would be preferred pursuant to sec.2 of the
deed of donation. However, before the test of age may be, applied the deed gives preference to the one, among the
legitimate descendants of the nephews named, who if not a lawyer (titulo de abogado), should be a doctor or a civil
engineer or a pharmacist, in that order; or if failing all theses, should be the one who pays the highest taxes among
those otherwise qualified.
Jesus Ma. Cui holds the degree of Bachelor of laws but is not a member of the Bar, not having passed the
examinations. Antonio Ma. Cui, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar and although disbarred in 1957, was
reinstated by resolution, about two weeks before he assumed the position of administrator of the Hospicio.
The term “titulo de abogado” means not mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but
membership in the Bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one for the practice of law. A Bachelor’s degree alone,
conferred by a law school upon completion of certain academic requirements, does not entitle its holder to exercise
the legal profession. By itself, the degree merely serves as evidence of compliance with the requirements that an
applicant to the examinations has “successfully completed all the prescribed courses, in a law school or university,
officially approved by the Secretary of Education.
The founders of the Hospicio provided for a lwayer, first of all, because in all of the works of an
administrator, it is presumed, a working knowledge of the law and a license to practice the profession would be a
distinct asset.
Under this criterion, the plaintiff Jesus is not entitled as against defendant, to the office of administrator.
Reference is made to the fact that the defendant Antonio was disbarred (for immorality and unprofessional conduct).
However, it is also a fact, that he was reinstated before he assumed the office of administrator. His reinstatement is
recognition of his moral rehabilitation, upon proof no less than that required for his admission to the Bar in the first
place. Also, when defendant was restored to the roll of lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resulting from his
previous disbarment were wiped out.

You might also like