Facts:

The case of Catalino Ortiz Airosa vs. Lorenzo de Guzman revolves around a dispute regarding the office of justice of the peace in Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. The petitioner, Catalino Ortiz Airosa, was appointed to this position on May 12, 1914, under Act No. 2041 and served until May 3, 1923. On that date, he was compelled to resign due to reaching the age limit of 65 years, as mandated by Act No. 3107. The resignation was prompted by repeated requests from Judge Hermogenes Reyes, who warned Airosa of potential contempt charges if he did not comply. Following his ouster, Airosa sought reconsideration of the court's order but was denied. In contrast, the respondent, Lorenzo de Guzman, claimed that Airosa voluntarily left the office and that he was duly appointed to the position on November 19, 1923, with confirmation from the Philippine Senate on February 8, 1924. De Guzman took possession of the office on April 1, 1924, without any protest from Airosa. Notably, Airosa did...

Facts:

1. Appointment and Tenure:

   • Petitioner Catalino Ortiz Airoso was appointed as justice of the peace of Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, on May 12, 1914, under Act No. 2041.
   • He served in this capacity until May 3, 1923, when he was compelled to resign after repeated requests from Judge Hermogenes Reyes due to reaching the age of 65.

2. Ouster and Legal Basis:

   • The petitioner was ousted from his office based on Act No. 3107, which set the age limit for justices of the peace at 65 years.
   • The petitioner argued that Act No. 3107, which took effect on March 17, 1923, had no retroactive effect and thus did not apply to him as he was appointed prior to its enactment.

3. Respondent’s Appointment:

   • Respondent Lorenzo de Guzman was appointed as justice of the peace on November 19, 1923, and his appointment was confirmed by the Philippine Senate on February 8, 1924.
   • He assumed office on April 1, 1924, without any protest or objection from the petitioner.

4. Petitioner’s Inaction:

   • The petitioner did not take any legal steps to reclaim his office until June 16, 1926, when he filed the present action.
   • During this period, the petitioner also ran as a candidate for municipal president in the 1925 elections, indicating his intention to leave the office of justice of the peace.

Issue:

1. Whether Act No. 3107, which sets the age limit for justices of the peace at 65 years, applies retroactively to the petitioner, who was appointed before the law took effect.
2. Whether the petitioner, after allowing three years to elapse without reclaiming his office and running for another position, can still seek reinstatement as justice of the peace.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)