Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 324 views

    Villar vs. Paraiso

    Uploaded by

    JeromeEspaldon
    1) Villar and Paraiso were candidates for mayor of Rizal, Nueva Ecija in the 1951 elections. Paraiso was elected but Villar contested, arguing Paraiso was ineligible as he was a minister. 2) The RTC found Paraiso ineligible for being an ecclesiastic and nullified his proclamation. It did not declare Villar the winner. Both parties appealed. 3) The CA certified the case to the SC, noting Villar only raised legal questions while Paraiso raised both legal and factual questions. The SC affirmed the RTC's decision, finding Paraiso did not genuinely resign his position in time and his documents appeared hastily prepared to cure his ineligibility.

    Copyright:

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

    Villar vs. Paraiso

    Uploaded by

    JeromeEspaldon
    324 views2 pages
    1) Villar and Paraiso were candidates for mayor of Rizal, Nueva Ecija in the 1951 elections. Paraiso was elected but Villar contested, arguing Paraiso was ineligible as he was a minister. 2) The RTC found Paraiso ineligible for being an ecclesiastic and nullified his proclamation. It did not declare Villar the winner. Both parties appealed. 3) The CA certified the case to the SC, noting Villar only raised legal questions while Paraiso raised both legal and factual questions. The SC affirmed the RTC's decision, finding Paraiso did not genuinely resign his position in time and his documents appeared hastily prepared to cure his ineligibility.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Villar and Paraiso were candidates for mayor of Rizal, Nueva Ecija in the 1951 elections. Paraiso was elected but Villar contested, arguing Paraiso was ineligible as he was a minister. 2) The RTC found Paraiso ineligible for being an ecclesiastic and nullified his proclamation. It did not declare Villar the winner. Both parties appealed. 3) The CA certified the case to the SC, noting Villar only raised legal questions while Paraiso raised both legal and factual questions. The SC affirmed the RTC's decision, finding Paraiso did not genuinely resign his position in time and his documents appeared hastily prepared to cure his ineligibility.

    Copyright:

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

    Villar vs. Paraiso

    Uploaded by

    JeromeEspaldon
    1) Villar and Paraiso were candidates for mayor of Rizal, Nueva Ecija in the 1951 elections. Paraiso was elected but Villar contested, arguing Paraiso was ineligible as he was a minister. 2) The RTC found Paraiso ineligible for being an ecclesiastic and nullified his proclamation. It did not declare Villar the winner. Both parties appealed. 3) The CA certified the case to the SC, noting Villar only raised legal questions while Paraiso raised both legal and factual questions. The SC affirmed the RTC's decision, finding Paraiso did not genuinely resign his position in time and his documents appeared hastily prepared to cure his ineligibility.

    Copyright:

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

    GR No.

    L-8014
    Villar vs. Paraiso
    Parties: Both are candidates for the office of Mayor of Rizal, Nueva Ecija
    Facts:
    1.) In the 1951 elections, Paraiso defeated Villar and was elected and proclaimed Mayor of Rizal,
    Nueva Ecija. Villar filed a quo warranto proceeding against Paraiso contending that the latter was
    ineligible to hold office because he was then a minister of the United Church of Christ and as such,
    was disqualified under Sec. 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code. Villar instituted a quo
    warranto proceeding praying that Paraisos proclamation as mayor-elect be declared null and void,
    and that he be declared duly elected mayor of Rizal. Paraiso denied ineligibility and claimed that he
    resigned as minister and that his resignation was accepted by the cabinet of his church.
    2.) RTC found Paraiso ineligible for being an ecclesiastic and declared his proclamation as mayor
    null and void. However, it did not declare Villar as mayor-elect for lack of legal ground to do so.
    Both parties appealed.
    3.) CA certified the case to the SC, finding that Villar raised only questions of law even though
    Paraiso raisedboth questions of law and fact.
    Issue: WON Paraiso, being an ecclesiastic, is ineligible to hold office as Mayor of Rizal, Nueva Ecija
    Held: YES
    Rule: SEC. 2175.
    Persons ineligible to municipal office.In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal
    office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries or compensation from
    provincial or Insular funds, or contractors for public works of the municipality.
    Application: SC did not find any reason to deviate from the finding of the trial court that respondent
    never ceased as minister of the order to which he belonged and that the resignation he claimed to
    have filed months prior to the elections was a mere scheme to circumvent the prohibition of law
    regarding ecclesiastics who desire to run for a municipal office.
    Indeed, if respondent really and sincerely intended to resign as minister of the religious
    organization to which he belonged for the purpose of launching his candidacy why did he not resign
    in due form and have the acceptance of his resignation registered with the Bureau of Public
    Libraries. The purpose of registration is two-fold: to inform the public not only of the authority of the
    minister to discharge religious functions, but equally to keep it informed of any change in his
    religious status. This information is necessary for the protection of the public. This is specially so
    with regard to the authority to solemnized marriages, the registration of which is made by the law
    mandatory (Articles 92-96, new Civil Code). It is no argument to say that the duty to secure the
    cancellation of the requisite resignation devolves, not upon respondent, but upon the head of his
    organization or upon the official in charge of such registration, upon proper showing of the reason
    for such cancellation, because the law likewise imposes upon the interested party the duty of
    effecting such cancellation, who in the instant case is the respondent himself. Thi she failed to do.
    And what is more, he failed to attach to his certificate of candidacy, a copy of his alleged
    resignation as minister knowing full well that a minister is disqualified by law to run for a municipal
    office. The documents Paraiso presented purporting to show his alleged resignation were held to be
    self-serving and appeared to have been prepared haphazardly, leading the court to believe that
    these were made only to cure his ineligibility to hold office.

    Disposotive Portion: Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as
    to costs. Petitioner was not declared elected, having obtained second place in the elections, in the
    absence of an express provision authorizing such declaration.

    You might also like