G.R. No. L-12354; February 4, 1918
GREGORIO REMATA, petitioner, vs. JUAN JAVIER and GENEROSO DE GALA, respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner Gregorio Remata was elected Vice-President of the Municipality of Candelaria, Tayabas, in the general elections of June 6, 1916. In an election contest, it was declared that no one was legally elected as municipal president. Consequently, under Section 2126 of the Administrative Code of 1916, Remata, as the duly elected Vice-President, claimed the right to succeed to the office of municipal president. The Court, in a prior ruling on a demurrer, upheld Remata’s entitlement to the office and declared respondent Juan Javier’s possession unlawful.

Pending further proceedings, Act No. 2707 was enacted on March 11, 1917, amending Section 2126 of the Administrative Code. Under the amended law, in case of a failure of election for a municipal office, the vacancy could be filled either by appointment by the provincial board or by special election, at the discretion of the Governor-General. Relying on this amendment, the Provincial Board of Tayabas, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, appointed Generoso de Gala as municipal president. Javier subsequently turned over the office to De Gala. Remata then filed a supplemental petition, making De Gala a party respondent and alleging that De Gala’s possession was unlawful. The case is now before the Court on De Gala’s demurrer to the supplemental petition.

ISSUE:
Whether Act No. 2707, which amended Section 2126 of the Administrative Code, retroactively deprived Remata of his right to the office of municipal president, which he had acquired prior to the amendment.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Remata. The Court held that Act No. 2707 should not be given retroactive effect to oust Remata from an office to which he had already acquired a vested right. Prior to the amendment, Remata had lawfully succeeded to the office of municipal president by virtue of his election as Vice-President and the judicial declaration of a failure of election for the presidency. At the time Act No. 2707 took effect, there was no vacancy in the office because Remata was lawfully entitled to it and was ready to assume its duties. The amendment merely provided a method for filling vacancies and did not authorize the creation of vacancies or the removal of incumbent lawful officers. Since no vacancy existed, the appointment of De Gala was unauthorized. The demurrer was overruled, and Remata was declared lawfully entitled to the office, with De Gala’s possession deemed unlawful.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.