G.R. No. L-89; February 1, 1946
JOSE TOPACIO NUENO, MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, EUSTAQUIO C. BALAGTAS, and DELIA C. DIÑO, petitioners, vs. GERARDO ANGELES, AGATON EVANGELISTA, ANDRES SANTA MARIA, VICENTE G. CRUZ, AMADO V. HERNANDEZ and FELICIDAD MANUEL, respondents.

FACTS

1. Petitioners Jose Topacio Nueno, Manuel de la Fuente, Eustaquio Balagtas, and Carmen Planas (among others) were elected members of the Municipal Board of Manila in the general election of December 10, 1940, and qualified on January 1, 1941, for a three-year term.
2. Subsequently, Nueno and Planas resigned to run for the House of Representatives in the November 14, 1941, national election but were not elected. The President of the Commonwealth then appointed petitioner Nueno to fill the vacancy created by his own resignation and appointed petitioner Delia C. Diño to fill the vacancy left by Planas, as both belonged to the same political party, “Young Philippines.”
3. Due to the Japanese occupation of Manila beginning January 3, 1942, the regular election for Board members scheduled for December 1943 could not be held. After the restoration of the Commonwealth Government on February 27, 1945, and due to the physical impossibility of holding a special election, the President appointed the six respondents and four of those elected in 1940 as members of the Board on July 18, 1945.
4. The four petitioners instituted this quo warranto action to oust the six respondents, claiming that: (a) their three-year term had not expired because they had not served completely due to the war; and (b) they were entitled to hold over until their successors were elected and qualified, making the respondents’ appointments null and void.
5. An intervenor for the “Young Philippines” party argued that the appointments violated Section 16(b) of Act No. 357 (Election Code) as none of the respondents belonged to that party, whereas petitioner Diño did, and that the appointments became ineffective for lack of Commission on Appointments confirmation after the adjournment of Congress.
6. Respondents, represented by the Fiscal, contended that the petitioners’ term expired on December 31, 1943, with no right to hold over, distinguishing term from tenure, and that the President’s appointments were valid under emergency powers granted by Act No. 671.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are entitled to hold over as members of the Municipal Board of Manila after the expiration of their term on December 31, 1943, and consequently, whether the President had the power to appoint the respondents as their successors.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through Justice Feria, ruled against the petitioners and in favor of the respondents.
1. On Procedural Technicality: The Court noted a procedural defect: an individual cannot sue to oust two or more persons from their respective offices unless entitled to all of them. The four petitioners sought to oust six respondents without specifying which respondents occupied the four specific seats claimed. However, the Court decided to address the merits to avoid further proceedings.
2. On Term vs. Tenure: The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that their term was extended because they had not served completely for three years due to the war. It distinguished between the term of office (the fixed period during which an officer may claim to hold the office) and the tenure (the period the incumbent actually holds it). The term is not extended by a hold-over, and tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons beyond the incumbent’s control. No principle extends a term of office due to war.
3. On the Right to Hold Over: The Court examined the applicable law. It stated the general common-law rule that, absent a contrary constitutional or statutory provision, an officer holds over until a successor is appointed or chosen and qualified. However, legislative intent to prohibit holding over may be express or implied. In this case, the Court found that the Philippine Legislature, in enacting the relevant provisions of the Revised Administrative Code concerning elective local offices (including the Manila Municipal Board), did not intend to adopt the common-law rule of hold-over for these offices. Instead, it fixed specific terms and provided for the occurrence of vacancies upon term expiration, implying that hold-over was not permitted. Therefore, the petitioners’ terms expired on December 31, 1943, and they had no right to continue in office thereafter.
4. On the Validity of Appointments: Since the petitioners’ terms had expired and no hold-over right existed, the seats became vacant. The President, under the emergency powers granted by Act No. 671 of Congress, had the authority to fill these vacancies by appointing the respondents. The Court did not find it necessary to rule on the intervenor’s arguments regarding party representation or Commission on Appointments confirmation, as the foundational claim of a hold-over right failed.
DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Hilado, concurred in by Chief Justice Moran and Justices Ozaeta and Paras):
The dissent argued that the petitioners were entitled to hold over under the common-law rule, as there was no express or implied legislative provision against it for the Municipal Board of Manila. It cited American jurisprudence supporting hold-over until a successor qualifies. The dissent concluded that the four petitioners were still entitled to their seats, the appointments of the respondents to those seats were invalid, and the last four of the six respondents (in order of appointment) should be ousted in favor of the petitioners.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The main decision dismissed the petition, upholding the respondents’ right to office. The dissenting opinion would have granted the petition, ousting four of the respondents and declaring the petitioners entitled to their seats.