Practice question
In an otherwise proper Rule 66 case, a claimant requests ouster and also demands that the court automatically reverse every permit and contract the respondent signed during the entire tenure, without any independent ground or proceeding addressing those acts. Under Miguel, which is correct?
- The quo warranto judgment automatically voids all prior acts.
- Every official act becomes a private crime by operation of the caption.
- The claimant may dispense with proof because contracts exist.
- Quo warranto’s office-title relief does not itself retroactively correct or reverse all acts performed under ostensible office authority.
- Ouster can never be granted in Rule 66.
Legal references
- Miguel v. Ogena, G.R. No. 256053, November 5, 2024, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/nov2024/gr_256053_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.