Tac-an vs CA, et al -The petitioner, Felipe G. Tac-An, Tac-An, is a lawyer whose services were engaged by the brothers Eleuterio Acopiado & Maxiino Acopiado who were accused o! !rustrated urder and the!t o! large cattle be!ore the Municipal "ourt o! #ew $i%an, aboanga del #orte in Mar '()*. -Eleuterio & Maxio Acopiado conveyed a parcel o! land to Tac-an Tac-an through a docuent entitled +eed o! uitclai representing his !ees as their lawyer in the criinal cases. -A!ter the execution o! the deed, the Acopiados told Tac-an Tac-an that they were terinating his services because their wives & parents did not agree that the land be given to pay !or his services & that they had hired another lawyer, a relative, to de!end the. -/ut Tac-an continued to represent the. - 0n the case !or !rustrated urder, the Acopiados were ac1uitted. The cases !or the!t o! large cattle were disissed due to the desistance o! the coplainants. -Moreover, Eleuterio sold his share o! the land previously conveyed to Tacan to 2esus $aghasian & $ilar 3ibetario. -4n 2uly 5, '()6, Tac-an secured the approval o! the $rovincial Governor o! aboanga del #orte to the +eed o! uitclai. -4n 4ct 7, '()6, he !il ed a coplaint against the Acopiado brothers, $aghasian & $ilar 3ibetario praying that he be declared the owner o! the land & that the sale ade i n !avor o! $aghasian & 3ibetario be annulled & he be paid !or daages. -The "F0 decided in !avor o! Tac-an whereupon the Acopiado8s, et.al appealed to "A. The "A voided the trans!er o! t he land to Tac-an applying sec '69 o! the Adinistrative "ode o! Mindanao & :ulu ; +"ontracts w< #on-"hristians =e1uisites. -4n April '5, '()9 while Tac-an suit was pending in the trial court, the Gov o! aboanga #, revo>ed his approval to the deed o! 1uitclai !or the reason o! :ec. '69 being the Acopiado8s as non-"hristians. -The petitioner asserts that the revocation o! the approval w
?o# the re1uisites in :ec. '69 o! the Ad. "ode o! Mindanao & :ulu still necessary when it is already repealed by =A 6595@
HELD:
es. -The approval by Gov. Felipe ABcuna ay no longer be relied upon by the plainti!! in view o! the revocation thereo! by the sae. -The revocation was based on the ground that the signature o! Gov. ABcuna was obtained obtained thru a !alse representation representation to the e!!ect e!!ect that the alleged transaction was legal & voluntary when in truth & in !act the said parcel o! land was the subCect atter o! a court litigationD &, oreover, the non"hri "hristi stian an vend vendor ors s were were not not brou brough ghtt be!o be!ore re hi hi !or !or inte interro rroga gatio tion, n, con!iration or rati!ication o! the alleged deed o! 1uitclai. -?hen the eed o! uitclai was executed, when the approval by the Governor was given & when the approval was revo>ed, :ections '69 & '6) o! the Adinistrative "ode o! Mindanao & :ulu were in !ull !orce & e!!ect & since they were substantive in nature the repealing statute cannot be given retroactive e!!ect. -0t should also be stated that the land in 1uestion ust be presued to be conCugal in nature & since the spouses o! the Acopiado brothers did not consen consentt to its trans! trans!er er to the petitione petitioner, r, the transa transacti ction on was at least least voidable.
Villegas vs Subido -In a letter dated June 3, 1968, respondent Eduardo Z. Romualdez, Sec of Fnance, aut!orzed respondent "lora of t!e #ffce of t!e $t% &reasurer of 'anla to assume t!e dutes of (ssstant $t% &reasurer. -In admnstrat)e #rder *o. +, seres of 1968, pettoner lleas, 'a%or of t!e $t% of 'anla, drected respondent "lora to desst / refran from e0ercsn t!e dutes / functons of t!e (ssstant $t% &reasurer, on t!e round t!at respondent Romualdez 2s not empoered to ma4e suc! desnaton.2 -#n Jan 1, 1969, 'a%or lleas, apponted pettoner 5apd, c!ef of t!e cas! d)son of t!e #ffce of t!e $ t% &reasurer of 'anla, as (ssstant $t% &reasurer. -In a 1st endorsement, respondent Sudo, $ommssoner of $ )l Ser)ce dsappro)ed t!e appontment of 5apd ecause t!e appontment of (ssstant 7ro)ncal &reasurers s stll o)erned o)erned % Sec 88 (: of t!e Re)sed (dmnstrat)e $ode, / not % Sec + of t!e ;ecentralzaton 5a, R( *o. <18<.2 -&!ereafter on Fe<, 1969, 'a%or lleas / 5apd fl ed t!e nstant petton for pro!ton, 1uo warranto and andaus, andaus, = applcaton for rt of prelmnar% n>uncton, pra%n t!at >udment e r endered to declare lleal / )od ab initio t!e aut!orzaton )en % respondent Romualdez to respondent "lora.
-It as not untl t!e fln of t!e petton t!at respondent "lora as nomnated % t!e 7res of t!e 7? to t!e poston of (ssstant $t% treasurer of 'anla / t!ereafter dul% confrmed. -&!e court rendered ts decson dsmssn t!e pett on. ?ence t!s appeal % a% of certorar. ISSUE: HELD:
-&!e $!arter of t!e $t% of 'anla, enacted n 19+9, n e0press terms dd confer on t!e 7res of t!e 7?, = t!e consent of t!e $o(, t!e poer to appont t!e (ssstant $t% &reasurer. -@nder ;ecentralzaton (ct of 196A, t!e ct% ma%or !as t!e poer to appont all ot!er emplo%ees pad out of ct% or local funds su>ect to c)l ser)ce la, rules / reulatons. -B!at !as een so clearl% ordaned n t!e $!arter s controlln. &!e addtonal poer ranted local offcals to appont emplo%ees pad out of local funds ould suffce to transfer suc! aut!ort% to pettoner 'a%or. -&!e decson no on appeal, to repeat, must e affrmed. 1. &!e n!erent ea4ness of t!e contenton of pettoner 'a%or t!at ould seze upon t!e )estn of t!e appontn poer of all ot!er 2emplo%ees2 e0cept teac!ers pad out of local funds to >ustf% !s c!oce of pettoner 'anuel ;. 5apd as (ssstant $t% &reasurer s readl% dsclosed. -&!e Re)sed (dmnstrat)e $ode dstnus!es one n t!at cateor% from an 2offcer2 to desnate t!ose 2!ose dutes, not en of a clercal or manual nature, ma% e consdered to n)ol)e t!e e0ercse of dscreton n t!e performance of t!e functon of o)ernment, !et!er suc! dutes are precsel% defned % la or not.2 -$learl%, t!e (ssstant / $t% &reasurer s an offcer, not an emplo%ee. -Sec + of t!e ;ecentralzaton (ct specfcall% enumerates, t!e offcals / t!er assstants !om t!e 'a%or can appont, specfcall% e0cludn t!erefrom ct% treasurers. -It s not to e dened t!at n t!e opnon of t!e $ourt, penned % Justce $astro, undue nterference t! t!e poer and preroat)es of a local e0ecut)e s sou!t to e a)oded, consdern !s prmar% r esponslt% for effcent o)ernmental admnstraton. -B!at s not to e nored t!ou! s t!at suc! a prncple as announced n connecton t! t!e appontment of a department !ead, t!e c!ef of polce, !o necessarl% must en>o% t!e fullest confdence of t!e local e0ecut)e, one moreo)er !ose appontment s e0pressl% )ested n t!e ct% ma%or. -&!e prncple t!eren announced does not e0tend as far as t!e c!oce of an assstant ct% treasurer !ose functons do not reCure t!at muc! deree of confdence, not to menton t!e specfc rant of suc! aut!ort% to t!e 7resdent. -ECuall% una)aln t!en s illegas v. :ubido, :ubido , !ere t!s $ourt reconzed t!at t!e c!oce of !o t!e ct% leal offcer s!ould e rests solel% on t!e ct% ma%or, suc! an offce reCurn as t does t!e !!est deree of confdence. -In t!e case efore us s of a dfferent cateor%. &!e decson appealed from, t!en, s not to e mpuned as a falure to ade % controlln pronouncements of t!s &runal. . 'uc! less s re)ersal of t!e loer court decson >ustfed on t!e plea t!at t!e aforesad pro)son n t!e ;ecentralzaton (ct !ad t!e effect of repealn !at s specfcall% ordaned n t!e ct% c!arter. -Repeals % duplcaton are not fa)ored / l l not e so declared unless t e manfest t!at t!e leslature so ntended. -It s necessar% t!en efore suc! a r epeal s deemed to e0st t!at t e s!on t!at t!e statutes or statutor% pro)sons deal t! t!e same su>ect matter and t!at t!e latter e nconsstent t! t!e former. -&!e lanuae used n t!e latter statute must e suc! as to render t rreconclale t! !at !ad een formerl% enacted. (n nconsstenc% t!at falls s!ort of t!at standard does not suffce. B!at s needed s a manfest ndcaton of t!e leslat)e purpose to repeal. -'ore specfcall%, a suseCuent statute, eneral n c!aracter as to ts terms and applcaton, s not to e construed as repealn a specal or specfc enactment, unless t!e leslat)e purpose to do so s manfest. &!s s so e)en f t!e pro)sons of t!e latter are suffcentl% compre!ens)e to nclude !at as set fort! n t!e specal act. -In t!e case of Manila =ailroad "o. v. =a!!erty , t!e $ourt !eld t!at 2From anot!er anle t!e presumpton aanst repeal s stroner. -( specal la s not rearded as !a)n een amended or repealed % a eneral la unless t!e ntent to repeal or alter s manfest. -Generalia specialibus non derogant . -(nd t!s s true alt!ou! t!e terms of t!e eneral act are road enou! to nclude t!e matter n t!e specal st atute. ... (t an% rate, n t!e e)ent !armon% eteen pro)sons of t!s t%pe n t!e same la or n to las s mpossle, t!e specfc pro)son controls unless t!e statute, consdered n ts entret%, ndcates a contrar% ntenton upon t!e part of t!e leslature. ... ( eneral la s one !c! emraces a class class of su>ects or places and does not omt an% su>ect or place naturall% elonn to suc! class !le a specal act s one !c! relates to partcular persons or t!ns of a class. --B?EREF#RE, t!e loer court decson of (uust +, 1969 s affrmed.
