0% found this document useful (0 votes)
151 views3 pages

Tañada vs. Yulo

The case Tañada vs. Yulo involves Juan Tañada's removal from his position as justice of the peace due to the interpretation of Act No. 3899, which mandates that justices over 65 years old must cease holding office. The Supreme Court ruled that Tañada, who turned 65 after the Act's enactment, was not affected by the law and that his transfer to another municipality did not constitute a new appointment. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Tañada, allowing him to retain his position.

Uploaded by

Nic Padua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
151 views3 pages

Tañada vs. Yulo

The case Tañada vs. Yulo involves Juan Tañada's removal from his position as justice of the peace due to the interpretation of Act No. 3899, which mandates that justices over 65 years old must cease holding office. The Supreme Court ruled that Tañada, who turned 65 after the Act's enactment, was not affected by the law and that his transfer to another municipality did not constitute a new appointment. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Tañada, allowing him to retain his position.

Uploaded by

Nic Padua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Junio, Vernalyn D.

Statutory Construction – Section 1


Case Tañada vs. Yulo Legal Basis Act No. 3899
Title
Court of First
Court Instance; Petitioner/s JUAN TAÑADA
Supreme Court
JOSE YULO, Secretary
of Justice, EDUARDO
GUTIERREZ DAVID,
Judge of First
43575 Responden Instance of the
G.R. No.
t/s Thirteenth Judicial
District, and
SANTIAGO TAÑADA,
Justice of the Peace
of Alabat, Tayabas,
Date May 31, 1935 Ponente MALCOLM, J
Decision of the Lower Courts:
The judge of First Instance directed Tañada to cease
acting as the justice of the peace of Perez. The
Regional
instruction was based on the interpretation of Act No.
Trial
3899, which the authorities believed applied to
Court
(RTC) Tañada.

Doctrine Verba Legis Non Est Recedendum - As the


/s: provisions are clear, plain ,and free from ambiguity,
they must be given their literal meaning and applied
without attempted interpretation.
Case Summary:
This legal case involves the interpretation of Act No. 3899,
whereas justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be
appointed to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five
years, that at the time this Act takes effect, have completed sixty-
five years of age, shall automatically cease to hold office on
January 1st 1933.

Facts:
Juan Tañada was appointed as a justice of the peace for the
municipality of Alabat, Tayabas, on December 4, 1911.
On September 8, 1934, Tañada requested a transfer from his position
in Alabat to the same position in the municipality of Perez, also in the
province of Tayaba’s.
Tañada turned 65 years old on October 5, 1934. At that time, Act No.
3899 was already in effect. This Act, enacted on November 16, 1931,
required that justices of the peace who had already reached 65 years

1|Page
Junio, Vernalyn D.
Statutory Construction – Section 1
of age at the time the Act was passed had to cease holding office by
January 1st 1933.

After Tañada turned 65, the Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, acting
on instructions from the Department of Justice, directed him to cease
acting as the justice of the peace of Perez. The instruction was based
on the interpretation of Act No. 3899, which the authorities believed
applied to Tañada.
Tañada complied with the directive and surrendered his office but did
so under protest. He subsequently filed a quo warranto action,
challenging his removal and seeking reinstatement to his position as
justice of the peace of Perez.

Issue/s:
1. Whether Act No. 3899 applied to Tañada, who turned 65 after the
Act's enactment
2. Whether his transfer to Perez constituted a new appointment that
made him subject to the age limit specified in the Act.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court gave application to the decision of this court
in Regalado vs. Yulo, supra , whereas it was there decided that the
natural and reasonable meaning of the language used in Act No. 3899,
leaves room for no other deducting than that a justice of the peace
appointed prior to the approval of the Act and who completed sixty-five
years of age on September 13, 1934, subsequent to the approval of
the Act, which was on November 16, 1931, and to the date fixed for
cessation from office which was on January 1, 1933, is not affected by
the said Act.
Tañada turned 65 on October 5, 1934, after the cutoff date specified in
the Act which requires justices to cease holding an office on January 1,
1933. Since Tañada did not turn 65 on the date of enactment and until
the required date to cease holding an office, he was not affected by the
law.
The court also rejected the argument that Tañada’s transfer from the
municipality of Alabat to Perez constituted a new appointment, which
would bring him under the purview of Act No. 3899. The court ruled
that the transfer was not a new appointment but simply a change of
jurisdiction. This ruling was supported by the precedent set in the U.S.
Supreme Court case Alberto v. Nicolas, which established that such
transfers do not amount to new appointments but are based on the
original appointment.

2|Page
Junio, Vernalyn D.
Statutory Construction – Section 1

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tañada.

3|Page

You might also like