Practice question
A proper direct proceeding is brought to determine a de facto occupant’s title to an office. The occupant argues that because the public may rely on her otherwise lawful official acts, no competent tribunal may ever determine her appointment invalid in any proceeding. Which answer is best?
- The public-act doctrine abolishes every direct title action.
- Every de facto occupant becomes irremovable by performing one act.
- Protection against collateral disruption of public acts does not itself bar a properly authorized direct inquiry into title.
- The occupant may personally repeal quo warranto law.
- A permit recipient can conclusively appoint the occupant de jure.
Legal references
- Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. L-28196 and L-28224, November 9, 1967, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/nov1967/gr_l-28196_1967.html
- General Manager, Philippine Ports Authority v. Monserate, G.R. No. 129616, April 17, 2002, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_129616_2002.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.