GR 13799; (September, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. 13799; September 23, 1918
CATALINO BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. PAULINO FAJARDO, respondent.
FACTS:
At the election held on June 6, 1916, Catalino Bautista was elected vice-president of Masantol, Pampanga, and assumed office on October 16, 1916. The election for municipal president held simultaneously was annulled by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on July 28, 1916, resulting in a failure of election for that office. Consequently, under prevailing jurisprudence, Bautista, as vice-president, became entitled to succeed to the office of municipal president. However, Bautista did not immediately assert this right and continued to perform the duties of vice-president. The outgoing municipal president, Bustos, held over in the office of president from October 16, 1916, until May 2, 1917, during which period Bautista made no claim to the presidency, though he occasionally served as acting president during Bustos’s absences. On May 2, 1917, the Provincial Board of Pampanga, purportedly under Act No. 2707, appointed Paulino Fajardo as municipal president, and he assumed office on May 6, 1917. On March 4, 1918, Bautista filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to oust Fajardo and be declared entitled to the office.
ISSUE:
Whether Bautista’s action to recover the office of municipal president is barred by the one-year prescriptive period under Section 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
RULING:
Yes, the action is barred by prescription. Section 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an action to oust a person from office must be brought within one year after the cause of ouster or the right to hold the office arose. The Court held that the prescriptive period may be reckoned from either the unlawful exclusion of the rightful claimant or the accrual of the right to hold the office. In this case, Bautista’s right to the office accrued, at the latest, on October 16, 1916, when he could have first demanded possession of the office following the failure of the election. Since he filed the action only on March 4, 1918more than one year laterhis claim is prescribed. The Court emphasized that public interest requires speedy resolution of disputes over public offices and that the prescriptive period cannot be revived by a change in the incumbent. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.