Practice question
In an ordinary dispute about an otherwise lawful permit, one party seeks to invalidate it solely by collaterally attacking the issuing de facto officer's appointment. The permit fell within the office's authority. No authorized direct title proceeding is before the tribunal. Under Gonzales v. COMELEC, what is the best response?
- Any collateral objection automatically ousts the officer
- The permit must fail solely because the officer lacked perfect title
- The collateral attack does not defeat the otherwise lawful de facto act; title must be challenged through the proper direct proceeding
- The doctrine forbids every possible direct title challenge
- The officer obtains permanent lawful title once any permit is issued
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.