GR 39778; (April, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 39778; April 9, 1934
JAMES MA. CUI, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TEODORO CUI, defendant-appellee. MARIANO CUI, intervenor-appellant.
FACTS
The case involves a dispute over the office of manager/trustee of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, a charitable home incorporated by a special legislative act (Act No. 3239). The founders, Pedro Cui and Benigna Cui, were to manage the home during their lifetime, with succession as they designated. After their deaths, a controversy arose regarding the rightful holder of the office. James Ma. Cui filed an action against Teodoro Cui, claiming the office was being unlawfully held. Mariano Cui intervened. The lower court sustained Teodoro Cui’s demurrer (motion to dismiss), primarily on the ground that the action was a quo warranto proceeding that could only be instituted by the Attorney-General or the provincial fiscal under the Code of Civil Procedure.
ISSUE
Whether an action to try title to an office in a private corporation created by a special legislative act can be maintained by a private person claiming the right to that office, without the intervention of the Attorney-General or the fiscal, under section 201 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s orders sustaining the demurrer to the first and third causes of action and the complaint in intervention. The Court held that while the corporation was created by a special act, the office in question was not a public office but a private office. Consequently, an action to try title to such an office falls under section 201 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a person claiming entitlement to a “public office” (interpreted in this context to include a corporate office of this nature) unlawfully held by another to bring an action without state intervention. The Court distinguished this from a direct attack on the corporation’s franchise, which would require action by the state. Here, the dispute involved private rights and the administration of corporate functions, permitting the private claimants to maintain the action. The order was affirmed only as to the second cause of action, which involved a different procedural issue under the deed of donation. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
AI Generated by Armztrong.