Title
Cruz vs. Youngberg
Case
G.R. No. 34674
Decision Date
Oct 26, 1931
Petitioner challenged Act No. 3155’s constitutionality, seeking a permit for cattle importation. Court upheld the law under police power, citing public health and industry protection, and noted Act No. 3052 would still bar importation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 34674)

Nature of the Petition and Constitutional Challenge

Cruz filed in the Court of First Instance an original petition for a writ of mandatory injunction to compel issuance of a permit for his imported cattle. He attacked Act No. 3155 as unconstitutional, arguing it exceeded legislative power by indiscriminately prohibiting cattle importation and delegating unfettered discretion to the Governor-General.

Statutory Scheme under Act No. 3155

Section 1 of Act No. 3155 prohibits all cattle importation into the Philippine Islands after March 31, 1925, subject to suspension or repeal by the Governor-General with concurrence of both legislative presiding officers. Section 2 repeals inconsistent laws, and Section 3 makes the act effective upon approval (March 8, 1924).

Trial Court’s Demurrer and Dismissal

The respondent demurred for failure to state a cause of action, contending that (1) even if Act No. 3155 were void, Act No. 3052 would govern and still bar importation without departmental approval; and (2) Act No. 3155 is itself constitutional. The Court of First Instance sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint, prompting Cruz’s appeal.

Interaction with Act No. 3052

Act No. 3052 amended section 1762 of the Administrative Code to prohibit cattle importation but allowed limited exceptions—up to 500 head of thoroughbreds per annum for breeding and any draft or serum-manufacture cattle—only with the Director of Agriculture’s and department head’s joint approval. The respondent argued that, if Act No. 3155 fell, Act No. 3052 would automatically resume full force.

Principle of Statutory Construction on Unconstitutional Laws

The Court reaffirmed that a statute declared void cannot operate to repeal earlier laws by implication. An unconstitutional act is “as though it never existed,” leaving prior law intact. Therefore, invalidating Act No. 3155 would not free Cruz from Act No. 3052’s restrictions.

Avoidance of Unnecessary Constitutional Ruling

Consistent with precedent, the Court declines to decide constitutional questions when not essential to relief. Since Act No. 3052 alone would bar the petitioner’s request, the validity of Act No. 3155 need not be judicially examined to resolve the case.

Validation of Act No. 3155 under Police Power

The Court nonetheless upheld Act No. 3155 as a valid exercise of the police power to protect public health and the cattle industry from foreign diseases. Legislative judgments on public welfare and quarantine measures are entitled to deference unless shown to exceed constitutional authority.

Delegation of Discretion to the Governor-General

The reservation of power to the Governor-General to suspend the prohibition was charac

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.