Practice question
A person openly performs an existing office's duties under an apparently regular appointment later found defective. The person qualifies as a de facto officer. An official act was within that office's competence and otherwise lawful. A third person argues that the appointment defect alone makes the act void against the public. Which answer is correct?
- The de facto doctrine may preserve the act's public validity despite that title defect
- Every title defect necessarily voids all official acts
- The doctrine automatically makes the appointment de jure
- The third person must become the appointing authority
- The doctrine validates every act even outside the office's competence
Legal references
- General Manager, Philippine Ports Authority v. Monserate, G.R. No. 129616, April 17, 2002, main decision, de facto officers and qualified emoluments: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_129616_2002.html
- Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. L-28196 and L-28224, November 9, 1967, main decision, de facto acts and collateral attack: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/nov1967/gr_l-28196_1967.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.