Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 209 views

    Malabang Vs Benito

    Uploaded by

    adam niel corvera
    This case involves a petition to nullify Executive Order 386 which created the Municipality of Balabagan out of barangays and sitios of Malabang, Lanao del Sur. The petitioner argued that EO 386 should be nullified based on a previous Supreme Court ruling. The respondents contended that Balabagan was a de facto corporation and its existence could not be collaterally attacked. The Supreme Court ruled that Balabagan was not a de facto corporation as there was no valid law authorizing its creation. As it was neither a de jure nor de facto corporation, its legal existence could be collaterally attacked in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Malabang Vs Benito

    Uploaded by

    adam niel corvera
    209 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition to nullify Executive Order 386 which created the Municipality of Balabagan out of barangays and sitios of Malabang, Lanao del Sur. The petitioner argued that EO 386 should be nullified based on a previous Supreme Court ruling. The respondents contended that Balabagan was a de facto corporation and its existence could not be collaterally attacked. The Supreme Court ruled that Balabagan was not a de facto corporation as there was no valid law authorizing its creation. As it was neither a de jure nor de facto corporation, its legal existence could be collaterally attacked in this case.

    Original Description:

    Digest (Pubcorp)

    Original Title

    Malabang vs Benito

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition to nullify Executive Order 386 which created the Municipality of Balabagan out of barangays and sitios of Malabang, Lanao del Sur. The petitioner argued that EO 386 should be nullified based on a previous Supreme Court ruling. The respondents contended that Balabagan was a de facto corporation and its existence could not be collaterally attacked. The Supreme Court ruled that Balabagan was not a de facto corporation as there was no valid law authorizing its creation. As it was neither a de jure nor de facto corporation, its legal existence could be collaterally attacked in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    209 views2 pages

    Malabang Vs Benito

    Uploaded by

    adam niel corvera
    This case involves a petition to nullify Executive Order 386 which created the Municipality of Balabagan out of barangays and sitios of Malabang, Lanao del Sur. The petitioner argued that EO 386 should be nullified based on a previous Supreme Court ruling. The respondents contended that Balabagan was a de facto corporation and its existence could not be collaterally attacked. The Supreme Court ruled that Balabagan was not a de facto corporation as there was no valid law authorizing its creation. As it was neither a de jure nor de facto corporation, its legal existence could be collaterally attacked in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    The Municipality of Malabang, et al. vs. Pangandapun Benito, et al., GR No.

    L-28113,
    March 28, 1969

    Facts:
    This case involves an action for prohibition to nullify EO 386. This EO 386 created the
    Municipality of Balabagan of the then President Carlos P. Garcia, out of barrios and sitios of the
    Municipality of Malabang.

    Petitioner’s Contention, etc. Respondent’s Contention, etc.


    - Petitiner Amer Macaorao Balindong is - Respondent is the Mayor, and the rest
    the Mayor of Malabang, Lanao del Sur of the respondents are the councilors
    of the Municipality of Balabagan,
    - Petitioner brought the action for Lanao del Sur
    prohibition to nullify EO386 and to
    restrain the respondent municipal - Respondent argued that the Pelaez
    officials from performing the ruling has no application in this case
    functions of their respective offices, because the municipality of Balabagan
    relying on the ruling of Supreme is at least a de facto corporation.
    Court’s decision in Pelaez vs. Auditor
    General and Municipality of San - This means that the Municipality of
    Joaquin vs. Siva Balabagan having been organized
    under the color of a statute before this
    declared unconstitutional, its officers
    having been either elected or
    appointed, and the municipality itself
    having been discharge its corporate
    function for the five years preceding
    the institution of this action.

    - Thus, as a de facto corporation, its


    existence cannot be collaterally
    attacked, although it may be inquired
    into in an action for quo warranto at
    the instance of the State and not of an
    individual like Petitioner Balindong.

    Issues:
    A. WON the municipality of Balabagan is a De Facto Corporation.
    B. WON its legal existence can be collaterally attacked.
    Ruling:

    A. No, it is not a De Facto Corporation.


    As a Rule, “where a de facto municipal corporation was recognized as such despite the
    fact that the statute creating it was later invalidated, the decisions could fairly be made
    to rest on the consideration that there was some other valid law giving corporate vitality
    to the organization.”

    In the case at bar, the mere fact that Balabagan was organized at a time when the statute
    had not been invalidated cannot conceivably make it a de facto corporation, as,
    independently of the Administrative Code provision in question, there is no other valid
    statute to give color of authority to its creation.

    B. Yes, it can be collaterally attacked.

    Generally, an inquiry into the legal existence of a municipality is reserved to the State in
    a proceeding for quo warranto or other direct proceeding, and that only in a few
    exceptions may a private person exercise this function of government. But the rule
    disallowing collateral attacks applies only where the municipal corporation is at least a
    de facto corporation. For where it is neither a corporation de jure nor de facto, but a
    nullity, the rule is that its existence may be questioned collaterally or directly in any
    action or proceeding by anyone whose rights or interests are affected thereby, including
    the citizens of the territory incorporated unless they are estopped by their conduct from
    doing so.

    In the case at bar, Municipality of Balabagan is not even a De Facto Corporation.

    Hence, it can be collaterally attacked.

    You might also like