Case Digest (G.R. No. 9321)
Facts:
The case of Norberto Asuncion et al. vs. Manuel de Yriarte, decided on September 24, 1914, revolves around a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the petitioners, Norberto Asuncion and others, against the respondent, Manuel de Yriarte, who was the chief of the division of archives of the Executive Bureau. The petitioners sought to compel Yriarte to file certain articles of incorporation that they had submitted. The respondent refused to register these articles, arguing that the purpose of the proposed corporation was unlawful and therefore not registerable under Section 6 of Act No. 1459, also known as the Corporation Law. The petitioners subsequently initiated an action in the Court of First Instance in Manila to compel the registration of their articles. The lower court ruled in favor of the respondent, affirming that he had the authority to determine both the sufficiency of the articles' form and the legality of the corporation's purpose. The petitioners appeal...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 9321)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioners/Appellants: Norberto Asuncion et al. (proposed incorporators).
- Respondent/Appellee: Manuel de Yriarte (Chief of the Division of Archives of the Executive Bureau).
Nature of the Case:
- The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to file and register their articles of incorporation for a proposed corporation.
Purpose of the Proposed Corporation:
- The corporation aimed to:
(a) Organize and regulate the management, disposition, administration, and control of common property in the barrio of Pulo or San Miguel.
(b) Use the natural products of said property for charitable works and institutions beneficial to the barrio or its inhabitants.
- The corporation aimed to:
Respondent’s Refusal:
- The respondent refused to register the articles of incorporation, arguing that the object of the corporation was unlawful under Section 6 of Act No. 1459 (Corporation Law).
Lower Court Decision:
- The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the Chief of the Division of Archives had the authority to determine both the sufficiency of the form of the articles and the legality of the corporation’s purpose.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Authority of the Chief of the Division of Archives:
- Under Section 6 of Act No. 1459, the Chief of the Division of Archives has the authority to determine whether the objects of a proposed corporation are lawful. This authority includes the power to decide questions of law, even if his duties are primarily ministerial.
Ministerial Duties vs. Judicial Function:
- While the respondent’s duties are ministerial, he may exercise judgment in determining the lawfulness of the corporation’s purpose. However, he does not have discretion to decide whether to accept or reject articles of incorporation based on personal opinion.
Lawfulness of the Corporation’s Purpose:
- The purpose of the proposed corporation is unlawful because it seeks to create a separate entity to manage and control property that belongs to the municipality of Pasig. This would disrupt the existing municipal government structure and is contrary to the Municipal Code (Act No. 82).
Mandamus as a Remedy:
- The respondent is subject to mandamus if he acts in violation of the law or unduly refuses to comply with it. However, in this case, the respondent’s refusal to register the articles of incorporation was justified because the corporation’s purpose was unlawful.