Persons Cases

Choco Notes

Persons and Family Relations Cases

1 Cases by Fiscal Recto

Contents People vs Umali ................................................................ 1

People vs Pesigan ............................................................. 7

People vs verdidiano II ..................................................... 9

TAADA vs Tuvera ......................................................... 12

Kasilag vs Rodriguez ....................................................... 16

People vs Donato ........................................................... 38

People vs Licera .............................................................. 51

People vs Pinuila ............................................................ 53

Yao Kee vs Sy-Gonzales .................................................. 57

G.R. No. 104037 May 29, 1992

People vs Umali

REYNALDO V. UMALI, petitioner,

vs. HON. JESUS P. ESTANISLAO, Secretary of Finance, and HON. JOSE U. ONG, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondents.

G.R. No. 104069 May 29, 1992

RENE B. GOROSPE, LEIGHTON R. SIAZON, MANUEL M. SUNGA, PAUL D. UNGOS, BIENVENIDO T. JAMORALIN, JR., JOSE D. FLORES, JR., EVELYN G. VILLEGAS, DOMINGO T. LIGOT, HENRY E. LARON, PASTOR M. DALMACION, JR., and, JULIUS NORMAN C. CERRADA,petitioners,

vs

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.

Rene B. Gorospe, Leighton R. Siazon, Manuel M. Sunga, Bienvinido T. Jamoralin, Jr and Paul D. Ungos for petitioners.

PADILLA, J.:

These consolidated cases are petitions for mandamus and prohibition, premised upon the following undisputed facts:

Congress enacted Rep. Act 7167, entitled "AN ACT ADJUSTING THE BASIC PERSONAL AND ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS ALLOWABLE TO INDIVIDUALS FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES TO THE POVERTY THRESHOLD LEVEL, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 29, PARAGRAPH (L), ITEMS (1) AND (2) (A) OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." It provides as follows:

Sec. (1). The first paragraph of item (1), paragraph (1) of Section 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

(1) Personal Exemptions allowable to individuals (1) Basic personal exemption as follows:

For single individual or married individual judicially decreed as legally separated with no qualified dependents P9,000

For head of a family P12,000

For married individual P18,000

Provided, That husband and wife electing to

compute their income tax separately shall be entitled to a personal exemption of P9,000 each.

Sec. 2. The first paragraph of item (2) (A), paragraph (1) of Section 29 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

(2) Additional exemption.

(a) Taxpayers with dependents. A married individual or a head of family shall be allowed an additional exemption of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) for each dependent: Provided, That the total number of dependents for which additional

Choco Notes



exemptions may be claimed shall not exceed four dependents: Provided, further, That an additional exemption of One Thousand Pesos (1,000) shall be allowed for each child who otherwise qualified as dependent prior to January 1, 1980: Provided, finally, That the additional exemption for dependents shall be claimed by only one of the spouses in case of married individuals electing to compute their income tax liabilities separately.

Sec. 3. This act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved. 1

The said act was signed and approved by the President on 19 December 1991 and published on 14 January 1992 in "Malaya" a newspaper of general circulation.

On 26 December 1991, respondents promulgated Revenue Regulations No. 1-92, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

Sec. 1. SCOPE Pursuant to Sections 245 and 72 of the National Internal Revenue Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7167, these Regulations are hereby promulgated prescribing the collection at source of income tax on compensation income paid on or after January 1, 1992 under the Revised Withholding Tax Tables (ANNEX "A") which take into account the increase of personal and additional exemptions.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 3. Section 8 of Revenue Regulations No. 6-82 is amended by Revenue Regulations No. 1-86 is hereby further amended to read as follows:

Section 8. Right to claim the following exemptions. . . .

Each employee shall be allowed to claim the following amount of exemption with respect to compensation paid on or after January 1, 1992.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 5. EFFECTIVITY. These regulations shall take effect on compensation income from January 1, 1992.

On 27 February 1992, the petitioner in G.R. No. 104037, a taxpayer and a resident of Gitnang Bayan Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, filed a petition for mandamus for himself and in behalf

all individual Filipino taxpayers, to COMPEL the respondents to implement Rep. Act 7167 with respect to taxable income of individual taxpayers earned or received on or after 1 January 1991 or as of taxable year ending 31 December 1991.

On 28 February 1992, the petitioners in G.R. No. 104069 likewise filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition on their

behalf as well as for those other individual taxpayers who might be similarly situated, to compel the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to implement the mandate of Rep. Act 7167 adjusting the personal and additional exemptions allowable to individuals for income tax purposes in regard to income earned or received in 1991, and to enjoin the respondents from implementing Revenue Regulations No. 1-92.

In the Court's resolution of 10 March 1992, these two (2) cases were consolidated. Respondents were required to comment on the petitions, which they did within the prescribed period.

The principal issues to be resolved in these cases are: (1) whether or not Rep. Act 7167 took effect upon its approval by the President on 19 December 1991, or on 30 January 1992, i.e., after fifteen (15) days following its publication on 14 January 1992 in the "Malaya" a newspaper of general circulation; and (2) assuming that Rep. Act 7167 took effect on 30 January 1992, whether or not the said law nonetheless covers or applies to compensation income earned or received during calendar year 1991.

In resolving the first issue, it will be recalled that the Court in its resolution in Caltex (Phils.), Inc. vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 97282, 26 June 1991 which is on all fours with this case as to the first issue held:

The central issue presented in the instant petition is the effectivity of R.A. 6965 entitled "An Act Revising The Form of Taxation on Petroleum Products from Ad Valorem to Specific, Amending For the Purpose Section 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code, As amended by Republic Act Numbered Sixty Seven Hundred Sixty Seven."

Choco Notes



Sec. 3 of R.A. 6965 contains the effectivity clause which provides. "This Act shall take effect upon its approval"

R.A. 6965 was approved on September 19, 1990. It was published in the Philippine Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, on September 20, 1990. Pursuant to the Act, an implementing regulation was issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Revenue Memorandum Circular 85-90, stating that R.A. 6965 took effect on October 5, 1990. Petitioner took exception thereof and argued that the law took effect on September 20, 1990 instead.

Pertinent is Article 2 of the Civil Code (as amended by Executive Order No. 200) which provides:

Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. . . .

In the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera (L-63915,

December 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 446, 452) we construed Article 2 of the Civil Code and laid down the rule:

. . .: the) clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislator may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date without its previous publication.

Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. . . .

Inasmuch as R.A. 6965 has no specific date for its effectivity and neither can it become effective upon its approval notwithstanding its express statement, following Article 2 of the Civil Code and the doctrine enunciated in Tanada, supra, R.A. 6965 took effect fifteen days after September 20, 1990, or specifically, on October 5, 1990.

Accordingly, the Court rules that Rep. Act 7167 took effect on 30 January 1992, which is after fifteen (15) days following its publication on 14 January 1992 in the "Malaya."

Coming now to the second issue, the Court is of the considered view that Rep. Act 7167 should cover or extend to compensation income earned or received during calendar year 1991.

Sec. 29, par. (L), Item No. 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, provides:

Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, the President shall automatically adjust not more often than once every three years, the personal and additional exemptions taking into account, among others, the movement in consumer price indices, levels of minimum wages, and bare subsistence levels.

As the personal and additional exemptions of individual taxpayers were last adjusted in 1986, the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, could have adjusted the personal and additional exemptions in 1989 by increasing the same even without any legislation providing for such adjustment. But the President did not.

However, House Bill 28970, which was subsequently enacted by Congress as Rep. Act 7167, was introduced in the House of Representatives in 1989 although its passage was delayed and

it did not become effective law until 30 January 1992. A perusal, however, of the sponsorship remarks of Congressman Hernando B. Perez, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, on House Bill 28970, provides an indication of the intent of Congress in enacting Rep. Act 7167. The pertinent legislative journal contains the following:

At the outset, Mr. Perez explained that the Bill Provides for increased personal additional exemptions to individuals in view of the higher standard of living.

The Bill, he stated, limits the amount of income of individuals subject to income tax to

Choco Notes



enable them to spend for basic necessities and have more disposable income.

xxx xxx xxx

Mr. Perez added that inflation has raised the basic necessities and that it had been three years since the last exemption adjustment in 1986.

xxx xxx xxx

Subsequently, Mr. Perez stressed the necessity of passing the measure to mitigate the effects of the current inflation and of the implementation of the salary standardization law. Stating that it is imperative for the government to take measures to ease the burden of the individual income tax filers, Mr. Perez then cited specific examples of how the measure can help assuage the burden to the taxpayers.

He then reiterated that the increase in the prices of commodities has eroded the purchasing power of the peso despite the recent salary increases and emphasized that the Bill will serve to compensate the adverse effects of inflation on the taxpayers. . . . (Journal of the House of Representatives, May 23, 1990, pp. 32-33).

It will also be observed that Rep. Act 7167 speaks of the adjustments that it provides for, as adjustments "to the poverty threshold level." Certainly, "the poverty threshold level" is the

poverty threshold level at the time Rep. Act 7167 was enacted by Congress, not poverty threshold levels in futuro, at which time there may be need of further adjustments in personal exemptions. Moreover, the Court can not lose sight of the fact that these personal and additional exemptions are fixed amounts to which an individual taxpayer is entitled, as a means to cushion the devastating effects of high prices and a depreciated purchasing power of the currency. In the end, it is the lower-income and the middle-income groups of taxpayers (not the high-income taxpayers) who stand to benefit most from the increase of personal and additional exemptions provided for by Rep. Act 7167. To that extent, the act is a social legislation intended to alleviate in part the present economic plight of the lower income taxpayers. It is intended to remedy the inadequacy of the heretofore existing personal and additional exemptions for individual taxpayers.

And then, Rep. Act 7167 says that the increased personal exemptions that it provides for shall be available thenceforth,

that is, after Rep. Act 7167 shall have become effective. In other words, these exemptions are available upon the filing of personal income tax returns which is, under the National Internal Revenue Code, done not later than the 15th day of April after the end of a calendar year. Thus, under Rep. Act 7167, which became effective, as aforestated, on 30 January 1992, the increased exemptions are literally available on or before 15 April 1992 (though not before 30 January 1992). But these increased exemptions can be available on 15 April 1992 only in respect of compensation income earned or received during the calendar year 1991.

The personal exemptions as increased by Rep. Act 7167 cannot be regarded as available in respect of compensation income received during the 1990 calendar year; the tax due in

respect of said income had already accrued, and been presumably paid, by 15 April 1991 and by 15 July 1991, at which time Rep. Act 7167 had not been enacted. To make Rep. Act 7167 refer back to income received during 1990 would require language explicitly retroactive in purport and effect, language that would have to authorize the payment of refunds of taxes paid on 15 April 1991 and 15 July 1991: such language is simply not found in Rep. Act 7167.

The personal exemptions as increased by Rep. Act 7167 cannot be regarded as available only in respect of compensation income received during 1992, as the implementing Revenue Regulations No. 1-92 purport to provide. Revenue Regulations No. 1-92 would in effect postpone the availability of the increased exemptions to 1 January-15 April 1993, and thus literally defer the effectivity of Rep. Act 7167 to 1 January 1993. Thus, the implementing regulations collide frontally with Section 3 of Rep. Act 7167 which states that the statute "shall take effect upon its approval." The objective of the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in postponing through Revenue Regulations No. 1-92 the legal effectivity of Rep. Act 7167 is, of course, entirely understandable to defer to 1993 the reduction of governmental tax revenues which irresistibly follows from the application of Rep. Act 7167. But the law-making authority has spoken and the Court can not refuse to apply the law-maker's words. Whether or not the government can afford the drop in tax revenues resulting from such increased exemptions was for Congress (not this Court) to decide.

WHEREFORE, Sections 1, 3 and 5 of Revenue Regulations No. 1-92 which provide that the regulations shall take effect on compensation income earned or received from 1 January 1992 are hereby SET ASIDE. They should take effect on compensation income earned or received from 1 January 1991.

Since this decision is promulgated after 15 April 1992, the individual taxpayers entitled to the increased exemptions on compensation income earned during calendar year 1991 who may have filed their income tax returns on or before 15 April

Choco Notes



1992 (later extended to 24 April 1992) without the benefit of such increased exemptions, are entitled to the corresponding tax refunds and/or credits, and respondents are ordered to effect such refunds and/or credits. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PARAS, J., concurring and dissenting:

I wish to concur with the majority opinion penned in this case by Justice Teodoro Padilla, because I believe that the tax exemptions referred to in the law should be effective already with respect to the income earned for the year 1991. After all, even if We say that the law became effective only in 1992, still this can refer only to the income obtained in 1991 since after all, what should be filed in 1992 is the income tax return of the income earned in 1991.

However, I wish to dissent from the part of the decision which affirms the obiter dictum enunciated in the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera (146 SCRA 446, 452) to the effect that a law becomes effective not on the date expressly provided for in said law, but on the date after fifteen (15) days from the publication in the Official Gazette or any national newspaper of general circulation. I say obiter dictum because the doctrine mentioned is not the actual issue in the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera (supra).

In that case, several presidential decrees of President Marcos were issued, but they were never published in the Official Gazette or in any national newspaper of general circulation. The real issue therefore in said case was whether or not said presidential decrees ever became effective. The Court ruled with respect to this issue (and not any other issue since there was no other issue whatsoever), that said presidential decrees never became effective. In other words, the ratio decidendi in that case was the ruling that without publication, there can be no effectivity. Thus, the statement as to which should be applied "after fifteen (15) days from publication" or "unless otherwise provided by law" (Art. 2, Civil Code) was mere obiter. The subsequent ruling in the resolution dated June 26, 1991 in Caltex, Inc. vs. Com. of Internal Revenue cannot likewise apply because it was based on the aforesaid obiter in Tanada v. Tuvera (supra). In the instant tax exemptions case, the law says effective upon approval, therefore, since this law was approved by the President in December, 1991, its subsequent publication in the January 1992 issue of the Civil Code is actually immaterial.

Art. 2 of the Civil Code which states:

Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication.

It is very clear and needs no interpretation or construction.

CRUZ. J., concurring:

As the ponente of Taada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446, I should like to make these brief observations on my brother Paras's separate opinion. He says that "the ratio decidendi in that case was the ruling that without publication, there can be no effectivity." Yet, while accepting this, he contends that, pursuant to its terms, R.A. 7167 became effective upon approval (i.e.,

even without publication). He adds that "since this law was approved by the President in December, 1991, its subsequent publication in the January 1992 issue of the Civil Code is actually immaterial." I confess I am profoundly bemused.

Separate Opinions

PARAS, J., concurring and dissenting:

I wish to concur with the majority opinion penned in this case by Justice Teodoro Padilla, because I believe that the tax exemptions referred to in the law should be effective already with respect to the income earned for the year 1991. After all, even if We say that the law became effective only in 1992, still this can refer only to the income obtained in 1991 since after all, what should be filed in 1992 is the income tax return of the income earned in 1991.

However, I wish to dissent from the part of the decision which affirms the obiter dictum enunciated in the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera (146 SCRA 446, 452) to the effect that a law becomes effective not on the date expressly provided for in said law, but on the date after fifteen (15) days from the publication in the Official Gazette or any national newspaper of general circulation. I say obiter dictum because the doctrine mentioned is not the actual issue in the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera (supra). In that case, several presidential decrees of President Marcos were issued, but they were never published in the Official Gazette or in any national newspaper of general circulation. The real issue therefore in said case was whether or not said presidential decrees ever became effective. The Court ruled with respect to this issue (and not any other issue since there was no other issue whatsoever), that said presidential decrees never became effective. In other words, the ratio

Choco Notes



decidendi in that case was the ruling that without publication, there can be no effectivity. Thus, the statement as to which should be applied "after fifteen (15) days from publication" or "unless otherwise provided by law" (Art. 2, Civil Code) was mere obiter. The subsequent ruling in the resolution

dated June 26, 1991 in Caltex, Inc. vs. Com. of Internal Revenue cannot likewise apply because it was based on the aforesaid obiter in Tanada v. Tuvera (supra). In the instant tax exemptions case, the law says effective upon approval, therefore, since this law was approved by the President in December, 1991, its subsequent publication in the January 1992 issue of the Civil Code is actually immaterial.

Art. 2 of the Civil Code which states:

Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication.

It is very clear and needs no interpretation or construction.

CRUZ. J., concurring:

As the ponente of Taada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446, I should like to make these brief observations on my brother Paras's separate opinion. He says that "the ratio decidendi in that case was the ruling that without publication, there can be no effectivity." Yet, while accepting this, he contends that, pursuant to its terms, R.A. 7167 became effective upon approval (i.e., even without publication). He adds that "since this law was approved by the President in December, 1991, its subsequent publication in the January 1992 issue of the Civil Code is actually immaterial." I confess I am profoundly bemused.

Footnotes

1 Before the enactment of Rep. Act 7167, Executive Order No. 37 approved by the President on 31 July 1986, provided for the following personal and additional exemptions for individual taxpayers:

(1) Personal exemptions allowable to individuals. (1) Basic personal exemption. For the purpose of determining the tax provided in Section 21(a) of this Title, there shall be allowed a basic personal exemption as follows:

For single individual or married individual

judicially decreed as legally separated

with no qualified dependents P6,000

For head of a family P7,500

For married individual P12,000

Provided, That husband and wife

electing to compute their income tax separately shall be entitled to a personal exemption of P6,000 each.

For purposes of this paragraph, the term "Head of Family" means an unmarried or legally separated man or woman with one or both parents, or with one or more brothers or sisters, or with one or more legitimate, recognized natural or legally adopted children living with and dependent upon him for their chief support, where such brothers or sisters or children are not more than twenty-one (21) years of age, unmarried and not gainfully employed or where such children, brothers or sisters, regardless of age are incapable of self-support because of mental or physical defect.

(2) Additional exemption

(A) Taxpayers with dependents. A married individual or a head of family shall be allowed an additional exemption of Three thousand pesos (P3,000) for each dependent: Provided, That the total number of dependents for which additional exemptions may be claimed shall not exceed four dependents: Provided, further, That an additional exemption of One thousand pesos (P1,000) shall be allowed for each child who otherwise qualified as dependent prior to January 1, 1980; and Provided, finally, That the additional exemption for dependents shall be claimed by only one of the spouses in the case of married individuals electing to compute their income tax liabilities separately.

In case of legally separated spouses, additional exemptions may be claimed only by

Choco Notes



the spouse who was awarded custody of the child or children: Provided, That the total amount of additional exemptions that may be claimed by both shall not exceed the maximum additional exemptions herein allowed:

For purposes of this paragraph, a dependent means a legitimate, recognized natural or legally adopted child chiefly dependent upon and living with the taxpayer if such dependent is not more than twenty-one (21) years of age, unmarried and not gainfully employed or if such dependent, regardless of age, is incapable of self-support because of mental or physical defect.

G.R. No. L-64279 April 30, 1984

People vs Pesigan

ANSELMO L. PESIGAN and MARCELINO L. PESIGAN, petitioners, vs. JUDGE DOMINGO MEDINA ANGELES, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City Branch 129, acting for REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of Camarines Norte, now presided over by JUDGE NICANOR ORIO, Daet Branch 40; DRA. BELLA S. MIRANDA, ARNULFO V. ZENAROSA, ET AL., respondents.

Quiazon, De Guzman Makalintal and Barot for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

AQUINO, J.:+ .wph!1

At issue in this case is the enforceability, before publication in the Official Gazette of June 14, 1982, of Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A dated October 25, 1980, providing for the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of carabaos transported from one province to another.

Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu ten-wheeler truck in

the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas, as the destination.

They were provided with (1) a health certificate from the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Sur, issued under the Revised Administrative Code and Presidential Decree No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974; (2) a permit to transport large cattle issued under the authority of the provincial commander; and (3) three certificates of inspection, one from the Constabulary command attesting that the carabaos were not included in the list of lost, stolen and questionable animals; one from the LIvestock inspector, Bureau of Animal Industry of Libmanan, Camarines Sur and one from the mayor of Sipocot.

In spite of the permit to transport and the said four certificates, the carabaos, while passing at Basud, Camarines Norte, were confiscated by Lieutenant Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, the town's police station commander, and by Doctor Bella S. Miranda, provincial veterinarian. The confiscation was basis on the aforementioned Executive Order No. 626-A which provides "that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another. The carabaos or carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government to be distributed ... to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos" (78 OG 3144).

Doctor Miranda distributed the carabaos among twenty-five farmers of Basud, and to a farmer from the Vinzons municipal nursery (Annex 1).

The Pesigans filed against Zenarosa and Doctor Miranda an action for replevin for the recovery of the carabaos allegedly valued at P70,000 and damages of P92,000. The replevin order could not be executed by the sheriff. In his order of April 25, 1983 Judge Domingo Medina Angeles, who heard the case at Daet and who was later transferred to Caloocan City, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action.

Choco Notes



The Pesigans appealed to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and section 25 of the Interim Rules and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440, a 1968 law which superseded Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

We hold that the said executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because, as already noted, it is a penal regulation published more than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14, 1982. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in article 2 of the Civil Code and section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes circulars and regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. (People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central Bank of the Phils., 104 Phil. 573; Balbuna vs. Secretary of Education, 110 Phil. 150.)

The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that "bajo la denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordenes dictadas de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad (1 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., p. 146.)

Thus, in the Que Po Lay case, a person, convicted by the trial court of having violated Central Bank Circular No. 20 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000, was acquitted by this Court because the circular was published in the Official Gazette three months after his conviction. He was not bound by the circular.

That ruling applies to a violation of Executive Order No. 626-A because its confiscation and forfeiture provision or sanction makes it a penal statute. Justice and fairness dictate that the public must be informed of that provision by means of publication in the Gazette before violators of the executive order can be bound thereby.

The cases of Police Commission vs. Bello, L-29960, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 230 and Philippine Blooming Mills vs. Social Security System, 124 Phil. 499, cited by the respondents, do not involve the enforcement of any penal regulation.

Commonwealth Act No. 638 requires that all Presidential executive orders having general applicability should be published in the Official Gazette. It provides that "every order or document which shag prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to have general applicability and legal effect."

Indeed, the practice has always been to publish executive orders in the Gazette. Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that even bureau "regulations and orders shall become effective only when approved by the Department Head and published in the Official Gazette or otherwise publicly promulgated". (See Commissioner of Civil Service vs. Cruz, 122 Phil. 1015.)

In the instant case, the livestock inspector and the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Norte and the head of the Public Affairs Office of the Ministry of Agriculture were unaware of Executive Order No. 626-A. The Pesigans could not have been expected to be cognizant of such an executive order.

It results that they have a cause of action for the recovery of the carabaos. The summary confiscation was not in order. The recipients of the carabaos should return them to the Pesigans. However, they cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas because they are now bound by the said executive order. Neither can they recover damages. Doctor Miranda and Zenarosa acted in good faith in ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of the carabaos.

WHEREFORE, the trial court's order of dismissal and the confiscation and dispersal of the carabaos are reversed and set aside. Respondents Miranda and Zenarosa are ordered to restore the carabaos, with the requisite documents, to the petitioners, who as owners are entitled to possess the same, with the right to dispose of them in Basud or Sipocot, Camarines Sur. No costs.

Choco Notes



SO ORDERED.1w ph1.t

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions

ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:

The Pesigans are entitled to the return of their carabaos or the value of each carabao which is not returned for any reason. The Pesigans are also entitled to a reasonable rental for each carabao from the twenty six farmers who used them. The farmers should not enrich themselves at the expense of the Pesigans.

Separate Opinions

ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:

The Pesigans are entitled to the return of their carabaos or the value of each carabao which is not returned for any reason. The Pesigans are also entitled to a reasonable rental for each carabao from the twenty six farmers who used them. The farmers should not enrich themselves at the expense of the Pesigans.

G.R. No. L-62243 October 12, 1984

People vs verdidiano II

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. REGINO VERIDIANO II, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City, Branch I, and BENITO GO BIO, JR., respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Anacleto T. Lacanilao and Carmelino M. Roque for respondents.

RELOVA, J.:+.wph!1

Private respondent Benito Go Bio, Jr. was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 in Criminal Case No. 5396 in the then Court of First Instance of Zambales, presided by respondent judge. The information reads: t.hqw

That on or about and during the second week of May 1979, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, guaranteeing the authenticity and genuineness of the same and with intent to defraud one Filipinas Tan by means of false pretenses and pretending to have sufficient funds deposited in the Bank of the Philippine Island, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously make and issue Bank of Philippine Island Check No. D-357726 in the amount of P200,000.00 Philippine Currency, said accused well knowing that he has no sufficient funds at the Bank of the Philippine Island and upon presentation of the said check to the bank for encashment, the same was dishonored for the reason that the said accused has no sufficient funds with the said bank and despite repeated

Choco Notes



demands made by Filipinas Tan on the accused to redeem the said check or pay the amount of P200,000.00, said accused failed and continues to fail to redeem the said check or to pay the said amount, to the damage and prejudice of said Filipinas Tan in the aforementioned amount of P200,000.00 Philippine Currency. (pp. 23-24, Rollo)

Before he could be arraigned respondent Go Bio, Jr. filed a Motion to Quash the information on the ground that the information did not charge an offense, pointing out that at the alleged commission of the offense, which was about the second week of May 1979, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 has not yet taken effect.

The prosecution opposed the motion contending, among others, that the date of the dishonor of the check, which is on September 26, 1979, is the date of the commission of the offense; and that assuming that the effectivity of the law Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 is on June 29, 1979, considering that the offense was committed on September 26, 1979, the said law is applicable.

In his reply, private respondent Go Bio, Jr. submits that what Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 penalizes is not the fact of the dishonor of the check but the act of making or drawing and issuing a check without sufficient funds or credit.

Resolving the motion, respondent judge granted the same and cancelled the bail bond of the accused. In its order of August 23, 1982, respondent judge said: t.hqw

The Court finds merit to the contention that the accused cannot be held liable for bouncing checks prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 although the check may have matured after the effectivity of the said law. No less than the Minister of Justice decreed that the date of the drawing or making and issuance of the bouncing check is the date to reckon with and not on the date of the maturity

of the check. (Resolution No. 67, S. 1981, People's Car vs. Eduardo N. Tan, Feb. 3, 1981; Resolution No. 192, S. 1981, Ricardo de Guia vs. Agapito Miranda, March 20, 1981).

Hence, the Court believes that although the accused can be prosecuted for swindling (Estafa, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code), the Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 cannot be given a retroactive effect to apply to the above entitled case. (pp. 49- 50, Rollo)

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner submitting for review respondent judge's dismissal of the criminal action against private respondent Go Bio, Jr. for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.

Petitioner contends that Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was published in the April 9, 1979 issue of the Official Gazette. Fifteen (15) days therefrom would be April 24, 1979, or several days before respondent Go Bio, Jr. issued the questioned check around the second week of May 1979; and that respondent judge should not have taken into account the date of release of the Gazette for circulation because Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that for the purpose of ascertaining the date of effectivity of a law that needed publication, "the Gazette is conclusively presumed to be published on the day indicated therein as the date of issue."

Private respondent Go Bio, Jr. argues that although Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 was published in the Official Gazette issue of April 9, 1979, nevertheless, the same was released only on June 14, 1979 and, considering that the questioned check was issued about the second week of May 1979, then he could not have violated Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 because it was not yet released for circulation at the time.

We uphold the dismissal by the respondent judge of the criminal action against the private respondent.

Choco Notes



The Solicitor General admitted the certification issued by Ms. Charito A. Mangubat, Copy Editor of the Official Gazette Section of the Government Printing Office, stating-t.hqw

This is to certify that Volume 75, No. 15, of the April 9, 1979 issue of the Official Gazette was officiallyreleased for circulation on June 14, 1979. (p. 138, Rollo)

It is therefore, certain that the penal statute in question was made public only on June 14, 1979 and not on the printed date April 9, 1979. Differently stated, June 14, 1979 was the date of publication of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Before the public may be bound by its contents especially its penal provisions, the law must be published and the people officially informed of its contents and/or its penalties. For, if a statute had not been published before its violation, then in the eyes of the law there was no such law to be violated and, consequently, the accused could not have committed the alleged crime.

The effectivity clause of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 specifically states that "This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette." The term "publication" in such clause should be given the ordinary accepted meaning, that is, to make known to the people in general. If the Batasang Pambansa had intended to make the printed date of issue of the Gazette as the point of reference in determining the effectivity of the statute in question, then it could have so stated in the special effectivity provision of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.

When private respondent Go Bio, Jr. committed the act, complained of in the Information as criminal, in May 1979, there was then no law penalizing such act. Following the special provision of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, it became effective only on June 29, 1979. As a matter of fact, in May 1979, there was no law to be violated and, consequently, respondent Go Bio, Jr. did not commit any violation thereof.

With respect to the allegation of petitioner that the offense was committed on September 26, 1979 when the check was presented for encashment and was

dishonored by the bank, suffice it to say that the law penalizes the act of making or drawing and issuance of a bouncing check and not only the fact of its dishonor. The title of the law itself states:

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

and, Sections 1 and 2 of said Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 provide: t.hqw

SECTION 1. Checks without sufficient funds. Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds ... shall be punished ...

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds ... . (Emphasis supplied)

ACCORDINGLY, the order of respondent judge dated August 23, 1982 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.1w ph1.t

Choco Notes



Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

TEEHANKEE, Actg. C.J., concurring:

I concur on the ground that actual publication of the penal law is indispensable for its effectivity (Pesigan vs. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174).

TAADA vs Tuvera

G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985

LORENZO M. TAADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI], petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President , MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Director, Malacaang Records Office, and FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing, respondents.

ESCOLIN, J.:

Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, 1 as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders.

Specifically, the publication of the following presidential issuances is sought:

a] Presidential Decrees Nos. 12, 22, 37, 38, 59, 64, 103, 171, 179, 184, 197, 200, 234, 265, 286, 298, 303, 312, 324, 325, 326, 337, 355, 358, 359, 360, 361, 368, 404, 406, 415, 427, 429, 445, 447, 473, 486, 491, 503, 504, 521, 528, 551, 566, 573, 574, 594, 599, 644, 658, 661, 718, 731, 733, 793, 800, 802, 835, 836, 923, 935, 961, 1017-1030, 1050, 1060-1061, 1085, 1143, 1165, 1166, 1242, 1246, 1250, 1278, 1279, 1300, 1644, 1772, 1808, 1810, 1813-1817, 1819-1826, 1829-1840, 1842-1847.

b] Letter of Instructions Nos.: 10, 39, 49, 72, 107, 108, 116, 130, 136, 141, 150, 153, 155, 161, 173, 180, 187, 188, 192, 193, 199, 202, 204, 205, 209, 211-213, 215-224, 226-228, 231-239, 241-245, 248, 251, 253-261, 263-269, 271-273, 275-283, 285-289, 291, 293, 297-299, 301-303, 309, 312-315, 325, 327, 343, 346, 349, 357, 358, 362, 367, 370, 382, 385, 386, 396-397, 405, 438-440, 444- 445, 473, 486, 488, 498, 501, 399, 527, 561, 576, 587, 594, 599, 600, 602, 609, 610, 611, 612, 615, 641, 642, 665, 702, 712-713, 726, 837-839, 878-879, 881, 882, 939-940, 964,997,1149-1178,1180-1278.

c] General Orders Nos.: 14, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64 & 65.

d] Proclamation Nos.: 1126, 1144, 1147, 1151, 1196, 1270, 1281, 1319-1526, 1529, 1532, 1535, 1538, 1540-1547, 1550-1558, 1561-1588, 1590-1595, 1594-1600, 1606-1609, 1612-1628, 1630-1649, 1694-1695, 1697-1701, 1705-1723, 1731-1734, 1737-1742, 1744, 1746-1751, 1752, 1754, 1762, 1764-1787, 1789-1795, 1797, 1800, 1802-1804, 1806-1807, 1812-1814, 1816, 1825-1826, 1829, 1831-1832, 1835-1836, 1839-1840, 1843-1844, 1846-1847, 1849, 1853-1858,

Choco Notes



1860, 1866, 1868, 1870, 1876-1889, 1892, 1900, 1918, 1923, 1933, 1952, 1963, 1965-1966, 1968-1984, 1986-2028, 2030-2044, 2046-2145, 2147-2161, 2163-2244.

e] Executive Orders Nos.: 411, 413, 414, 427, 429-454, 457- 471, 474-492, 494-507, 509-510, 522, 524-528, 531-532, 536, 538, 543-544, 549, 551-553, 560, 563, 567-568, 570, 574, 593, 594, 598-604, 609, 611- 647, 649-677, 679-703, 705-707, 712-786, 788-852, 854-857.

f] Letters of Implementation Nos.: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11-22, 25-27, 39, 50, 51, 59, 76, 80-81, 92, 94, 95, 107, 120, 122, 123.

g] Administrative Orders Nos.: 347, 348, 352-354, 360- 378, 380-433, 436-439.

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. The view is submitted that in the absence of any showing that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances in question 2 said petitioners are without the requisite legal personality to institute this mandamus proceeding, they are not being "aggrieved parties" within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which we quote:

SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.When any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use a rd enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in

the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to Protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant.

Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due course.

The issue posed is not one of first impression. As early as the 1910 case of Severino vs. Governor General, 3 this Court held that while the general rule is that "a writ of mandamus would be granted to a private individual only in those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large," and "it is for the public officers exclusively to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved [Mithchell vs. Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469]," nevertheless, "when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws [High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431].

Thus, in said case, this Court recognized the relator Lope Severino, a private individual, as a proper party to the mandamus proceedings brought to compel the Governor General to call a special election for the position of municipal president in the town of Silay, Negros Occidental. Speaking for this Court, Mr. Justice Grant T. Trent said:

We are therefore of the opinion that the weight of authority supports the proposition that the relator is a proper party to proceedings of this character when a public right is sought to be

Choco Notes



enforced. If the general rule in America were otherwise, we think that it would not be applicable to the case at bar for the reason 'that it is always dangerous to apply a general rule to a particular case without keeping in mind the reason for the rule, because, if under the particular circumstances the reason for the rule does not exist, the rule itself is not applicable and reliance upon the rule may well lead to error'

No reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general rule insisted upon by counsel for the respondent. The circumstances which surround this case are different from those in the United States, inasmuch as if the relator is not a proper party to these proceedings no other person could be, as we have seen that it is not the duty of the law officer of the Government to appear and represent the people in cases of this character.

The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a private citizen's legal personality in the aforementioned case apply squarely to the present petition. Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General, the government officer generally empowered to represent the people, has entered his appearance for respondents in this case.

Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Article 2 of the Civil Code:

Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided, ...

The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, 4 this Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication-but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.

Respondents' argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws with the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows:

Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important legisiative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be so published; [4] such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published. ...

The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various

Choco Notes



laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws taken so vital significance that at this time when the people have bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansaand for the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative recordsno such publicity accompanies the law-making process of the President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. As the Supreme Court of Spain ruled: "Bajo la denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordines dictadas de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad. 5

The very first clause of Section I of Commonwealth Act 638 reads: "There shall be published in the Official Gazette ... ." The word "shall" used therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itself makes a list of what should be published in the Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such publication.

The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative

and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. 6

It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. As Justice Claudio Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC 7:

In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters of instructions which all form part of the law of the land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that the Official Gazette as the official government repository promulgate and publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions so that the people may know where to obtain their official and specific contents.

The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not been published, shall have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quite apprehensive about the possible unsettling effect this decision might have on acts done in reliance of the validity of those presidential decrees which were published only during the pendency of this petition, have put the question as to whether the Court's declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s which had been enforced or implemented prior to their publication. The answer is all too familiar. In similar situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County Drainage District vs. Baxter Bank 8 to wit:

The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442; Chicago, 1. & L. Ry. Co.

Choco Notes



v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects-with respect to particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand examination. These questions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts, state and federal and it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified.

Consistently with the above principle, this Court in Rutter vs. Esteban 9 sustained the right of a party under the Moratorium Law, albeit said right had accrued in his favor before said law was declared unconstitutional by this Court.

Similarly, the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the Official Gazette is "an operative fact which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration ... that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified."

From the report submitted to the Court by the Clerk of Court, it appears that of the presidential decrees

sought by petitioners to be published in the Official Gazette, only Presidential Decrees Nos. 1019 to 1030, inclusive, 1278, and 1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been so published. 10 Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDs can be ascertained since no copies thereof are available. But whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that none of these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented or enforced by the government. In Pesigan vs. Angeles, 11 the Court, through Justice Ramon Aquino, ruled that "publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of [penal] regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. " The cogency of this holding is apparently recognized by respondent officials considering the manifestation in their comment that "the government, as a matter of policy, refrains from prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the same shall have been published in the Official Gazette or in some other publication, even though some criminal laws provide that they shall take effect immediately.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.

SO ORDERED.

Kasilag vs Rodriguez

G.R. No. 46623 December 7, 1939

MARCIAL KASILAG, petitioner, vs. RAFAELA RODRIGUEZ, URBANO ROQUE, SEVERO MAPILISAN and IGNACIO DEL ROSARIO, respondents.

Luis M. Kasilag for petitioner. Fortunato de Leon for respondents.

IMPERIAL, J.:

Choco Notes



This is an appeal taken by the defendant-petitioner from the decision of the Court of Appeals which modified that rendered by the court of First Instance of Bataan in civil case No. 1504 of said court and held: that the contract Exhibit "1" is entirely null and void and without effect; that the plaintiffs-respondents, then appellants, are the owners of the disputed land, with its improvements, in common ownership with their brother Gavino Rodriguez, hence, they are entitled to the possession thereof; that the defendant-petitioner should yield possession of the land in their favor, with all the improvements thereon and free from any lien; that the plaintiffs-respondents jointly and severally pay to the defendant-petitioner the sum of P1,000 with interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of the decision; and absolved the plaintiffs-respondents from the cross-complaint relative to the value of the improvements claimed by the defendant-petitioner. The appealed decision also ordered the registrar of deeds of Bataan to cancel certificate of title No. 325, in the name of the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio and to issue in lieu thereof another certificate of title in favor of the plaintiffs-respondents and their brother Gavino Rodriguez, as undivided owners in equal parts, free of all liens and incumbrances except those expressly provided by law, without special pronouncement as to the costs.

The respondents, children and heirs of the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio, commenced the aforesaid civil case to the end that they recover from the petitioner the possession of the land and its improvements granted by way of homestead to Emiliana Ambrosio under patent No. 16074 issued on January 11, 1931, with certificate of title No. 325 issued by the registrar of deeds of Bataan on June 27, 1931 in her favor, under section 122 of Act No. 496, which land was surveyed and identified in the cadastre of the municipality of Limay, Province of Bataan, as lot No. 285; that the petitioner pay to them the sum of P650 being the approximate value of the fruits which he received from the land; that the petitioner sign all the necessary documents to transfer the land and its possession to the respondents; that he petitioner be restrained, during the pendency of the case, from conveying or encumbering the land and its improvements; that the registrar of deeds of Bataan cancel certificate of title No. 325 and issue in lieu thereof another in favor of

the respondents, and that the petitioner pay the costs of suit.

The petitioner denied in his answer all the material allegations of the complaint and by way of special defense alleged that he was in possession of the land and that he was receiving the fruits thereof by virtue of a mortgage contract, entered into between him and the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio on May 16, 1932, which was duly ratified by a notary public; and in counterclaim asked that the respondents pay him the sum of P1,000 with 12 per cent interest per annum which the deceased owed him and that, should the respondents be declared to have a better right to the possession of the land, that they be sentenced to pay him the sum of P5,000 as value of all the improvements which he introduced upon the land.lawphil.net

On May 16, 1932 Emiliana Ambrosio, in life, and the petitioner executed the following public deed:

"This agreement, made and entered into this 16th day of May, 1932, by and between Emiliana Ambrosio, Filipino, of legal age, widow and resident of Limay, Bataan, P.L., hereinafter called the party of the first part, and Marcial Kasilag, Filipino, of legal age, married to Asuncion Roces, and resident at 312 Perdigon Street, Manila, P.L., hereinafter called party of the second part.

WITNESSETH: That the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree to and with each other as follows:

ARTICLE I. That the party of the first part is the absolute registered owner of a parcel of land in the barrio of Alngan, municipality of Limay, Province of Bataan, her title thereto being evidenced by homestead certificate of title No. 325 issued by the Bureau of Lands on June 11, 1931, said land being lot No. 285 of the Limay Cadastre, General Land Registration Office Cadastral Record No. 1054, bounded and described as follows:

Beginning at point marked 1 on plan E-57394, N. 84 32' W. 614.82 m. from B.B.M. No. 3, thence N. 66 35' E. 307.15 m. to point "2"; S. 5 07' W. to point "5"; S.6

Choco Notes



10' E. 104.26 m. to point "4"; S. 82 17' W. to point "5"; S. 28 53' W. 72.26 m. to point "6"; N. 71 09' W. to point "7"; N. 1 42' E. 173.72 m. to point 1, point of beginning, "Containing an area of 6.7540 hectares. "Points 1,2,6 and 7, B.L.; points 3,4 and 5, stakes; points 4, 5 and 6 on bank of Alangan River. "Bounded on the North, by property claimed by Maria Ambrosio; on the East, by Road; on the South, by Alangan River and property claimed by Maxima de la Cruz; and on the West, by property claimed by Jose del Rosario. "Bearing true. Declination 0 51' E. "Surveyed under authority of sections 12-22, Act No. 2874 and in accordance with existing regulations of the Bureau of Lands, by Mamerto Jacinto, public land surveyor, on July 8, 1927 and approved on February 25, 1931.

ARTICLE II. That the improvements on the above described land consist of the following:

Four (4) mango trees, fruit bearing: one hundred ten (110) hills of bamboo trees; one (1) tamarind and six (6) boga trees.

ARTICLE III. That the assessed value of the land is P940 and the assessed value of the improvements is P860, as evidenced by tax declaration No. 3531 of the municipality of Limay, Bataan.

ARTICLE IV. That for and in consideration of the sum of one thousand pesos (P1,000) Philippine currency, paid by the party of second part to the party of the first part, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the party of the first part hereby encumbers and hypothecates, by way of mortgage, only the improvements described in Articles II and III hereof, of which improvements the party of the first part is the absolute owner.

ARTICLE V. That the condition of said mortgage is such that if the party of the first part shall well and truly pay, or cause to paid to the party of the second part, his heirs, assigns, or executors, on or before the 16th day of November, 1936, or four and one-half (4) years after date of the execution of this instrument, the aforesaid sum of one thousand

pesos (P1,000) with interest at 12 per cent per annum, then said mortgage shall be and become null and void; otherwise the same shall be and shall remain in full force and effect, and subject to foreclosure in the manner and form provided by law for the amount due thereunder, with costs and also attorney's fees in the event of such foreclosure.lawphil.net

ARTICLE VI. That the party of the first part shall pay all taxes and assessments which are or may become due on the above described land and improvements during the term of this agreement.

ARTICLE VII. That within thirty (30) days after date of execution of this agreement, the party of the first part shall file a motion before the Court of First Instance at Balanga, Bataan, P. I., requesting cancellation of Homestead Certificate of Title No. 325 referred to in Article I hereof and the issuance, in lieu thereof, of a certificate of title under the provisions of Land Registration Act No. 496, as amended by Act 3901.

ARTICLE III. It if further agreed that if upon the expiration of the period of time (4) years stipulated in this mortgage, the mortgagor should fail to redeem this mortgage, she would execute a deed of absolute sale of the property herein described for the same amount as this mortgage, including all unpaid interests at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, in favor of the mortgagee.

ARTICLE IX. That in the event the contemplated motion under Article VII hereof is not approved by the Court, the foregoing contract of sale shall automatically become null and void, and the mortgage stipulated under Article IV and V shall remain in full force and effect.

In testimony whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first herein before written.

Choco Notes



(Sgd.) MARCIAL KASILAG

(Sgd.) EMILIANA AMBROSIO

Signed in the presence of:

(Sgd.) ILLEGIBLE

(Sgd.) GAVINO RODRIGUEZ.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS } ss. BALANGA, BATAAN } ss.

Before me this day personally appeared Emiliana Ambrosio without cedula by reason of her sex, to me known and known to me to be the person who signed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed.

I hereby certify that this instrument consists of three (3) pages including this page of the acknowledgment and that each page thereof is signed by the parties to the instrument and the witnesses in their presence and in the presence of each other, and that the land treated in this instrument consists of only one parcel.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal, this 16th day of May, 1932.

(Sgd.) NICOLAS NAVARRO Notary Public

My commission expires December 31, 1933.

Doc. No. 178 Page 36 of my register Book No. IV

One year after the execution of the aforequoted deed, that is, in 1933, it came to pass that Emiliana Ambrosio was unable to pay the stipulated interests as well as the tax on the land and its improvements. For this reason, she and the petitioner entered into another verbal contract whereby she conveyed to the latter the possession of the land on condition that the latter would not collect the interest on the loan, would attend to the payment of the land tax, would benefit by the fruits of the land, and would introduce improvements thereon. By virtue of this verbal contract, the petitioner entered upon the possession of the land, gathered the products thereof, did not collect the interest on the loan, introduced improvements upon the land valued at P5,000, according to him and on May 22, 1934 the tax declaration was transferred in his name and on March 6, 1936 the assessed value of the land was increased from P1,020 to P2,180.

After an analysis of the conditions of Exhibit "1" the Court of Appeals came to the conclusion and so held that the contract entered into by and between the parties, set out in the said public deed, was one of absolute purchase and sale of the land and its improvements. And upon this ruling it held null and void and without legal effect the entire Exhibit 1 as well as the subsequent verbal contract entered into between the parties, ordering, however, the respondents to pay to the petitioner, jointly and severally, the loan of P1,000 with legal interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the decision. In this first assignment of error the petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals violated the law in holding that Exhibit 1 is an absolute deed of sale of the land and its improvements and that it is void and without any legal effect.

The cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts is to the effect that the intention of the contracting parties should always prevail because their will has the force of law between them. Article 1281 of the Civil Code consecrates this rule and provides, that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal sense of

Choco Notes



its stipulations shall be followed; and if the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the contracting parties, the intention shall prevail. The contract set out in Exhibit 1 should be interpreted in accordance with these rules. As the terms thereof are clear and leave no room for doubt, it should be interpreted according to the literal meaning of its clauses. The words used by the contracting parties in Exhibit 1 clearly show that they intended to enter into the principal contract of loan in the amount of P1,000, with interest at 12 per cent per annum, and into the accessory contract of mortgage of the improvements on the land acquired as homestead, the parties having moreover, agreed upon the pacts and conditions stated in the deed. In other words, the parties entered into a contract of mortgage of the improvements on the land acquired as homestead, to secure the payment of the indebtedness for P1,000 and the stipulated interest thereon. In clause V the parties stipulated that Emiliana Ambrosio was to pay, within four and a half years, or until November 16, 1936, the debt with interest thereon, in which event the mortgage would not have any effect; in clause VI the parties agreed that the tax on the land and its improvements, during the existence of the mortgage, should be paid by the owner of the land; in clause VII it was covenanted that within thirty days from the date of the contract, the owner of the land would file a motion in the Court of First Instance of Bataan asking that certificate of title No. 325 be cancelled and that in lieu thereof another be issued under the provisions of the Land Registration Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 3901; in clause VIII the parties agreed that should Emiliana Ambrosio fail to redeem the mortgage within the stipulated period of four years and a half, she would execute an absolute deed of sale of the land in favor of the mortgagee, the petitioner, for the same amount of the loan of P1,000 including unpaid interest; and in clause IX it was stipulated that in case the motion to be presented under clause VII should be disapproved by the Court of First Instance of Bataan, the contract of sale would automatically become void and the mortgage would subsist in all its force.

Another fundamental rule in the interpretation of contracts, not less important than those indicated, is to the effect that the terms, clauses and conditions contrary to law, morals and public order should be separated from the valid and legal contract and when

such separation can be made because they are independent of the valid contract which expresses the will of the contracting parties. Manresa, commenting on article 1255 of the Civil Code and stating the rule of separation just mentioned, gives his views as follows:

On the supposition that the various pacts, clauses or conditions are valid, no difficulty is presented; but should they be void, the question is as to what extent they may produce the nullity of the principal obligation. Under the view that such features of the obligation are added to it and do not go to its essence, a criterion based upon the stability of juridical relations should tend to consider the nullity as confined to the clause or pact suffering therefrom, except in case where the latter, by an established connection or by manifest intention of the parties, is inseparable from the principal obligation, and is a condition, juridically speaking, of that the nullity of which it would also occasion. (Manresa, Commentaries on the Civil Code, Volume 8, p. 575.)

The same view prevails in the Anglo-American law, as condensed in the following words:

Where an agreement founded on a legal consideration contains several promises, or a promise to do several things, and a part only of the things to be done are illegal, the promises which can be separated, or the promise, so far as it can be separated, from the illegality, may be valid. The rule is that a lawful promise made for a lawful consideration is not invalid merely because an unlawful promise was made at the same time and for the same consideration, and this rule applies, although the invalidity is due to violation of a statutory provision, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication declares the entire contract void. . . . (13 C. J., par. 470, p. 512; New York Cent. etc. R. Co. v. Gray, 239 U.S., 583; 60 Law ed., 451; U.S. v. Mora, 97 U.S., 413, 24 Law. ed., 1017; U.S. v. Hodson, 10 Wall, 395; 19 Law ed. 937; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, 17 Law ed., 520; U.S. v. Bradly, 10 Pet. 343, 9 Law. ed.,

Choco Notes



448; Borland v. Prindle, 144 Fed 713; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 4 Fed., 284; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. U.S., 15 Ct. Cl., 428.)

Addressing ourselves now to the contract entered into by the parties, set out in Exhibit 1, we stated that the principal contract is that of loan and the accessory that of mortgage of the improvements upon the land acquired as a homestead. There is no question that the first of these contract is valid as it is not against the law. The second, or the mortgage of the improvements, is expressly authorized by section 116 of Act No. 2874, as amended by section 23 of Act No. 3517, reading:

SEC. 116. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units or institutions, or legally constituted banking corporations, lands acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period; but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.

It will be recalled that by clause VIII of Exhibit 1 the parties agreed that should Emiliana Ambrosio fail to redeem the mortgage within the stipulated period of four and a half years, by paying the loan together with interest, she would execute in favor of the petitioner an absolute deed of sale of the land for P1,000, including the interest stipulated and owing. The stipulation was verbally modified by the same parties after the expiration of one year, in the sense that the petitioner would take possession of the land and would benefit by the fruits thereof on condition that he would condone the payment of interest upon the loan and he would attend to the payment of the land tax. These pacts made by the parties independently were calculated to alter the mortgage a contract clearly entered into, converting the latter into a contract of antichresis. (Article 1881 of the Civil Code.) The

contract of antichresis, being a real encumbrance burdening the land, is illegal and void because it is legal and valid.

The foregoing considerations bring us to the conclusion that the first assignment of error is well-founded and that error was committed in holding that the contract entered into between the parties was one of absolute sale of the land and its improvements and that Exhibit 1 is null and void. In the second assignment of error the petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that he is guilty of violating the Public Land Act because he entered into the contract, Exhibit 1. The assigned error is vague and not specific. If it attempts to show that the said document is valid in its entirety, it is not well-founded because we have already said that certain pacts thereof are illegal because they are prohibited by section 116 of Act No. 2874, as amended.

In the third assignment of error the petitioner insists that his testimony, as to the verbal agreement entered into between him and Emiliana Ambrosio, should have been accepted by the Court of Appeals; and in the fourth and last assignment of error the same petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that he acted in bad faith in taking possession of the land and in taking advantage of the fruits thereof, resulting in the denial of his right to be reimbursed for the value of the improvements introduced by him.

We have seen that subsequent to the execution of the contract, Exhibit 1, the parties entered into another verbal contract whereby the petitioner was authorized to take possession of the land, to receive the fruits thereof and to introduce improvements thereon, provided that he would renounce the payment of stipulated interest and he would assume payment of the land tax. The possession by the petitioner and his receipt of the fruits of the land, considered as integral elements of the contract of antichresis, are illegal and void agreements because, as already stated, the contract of antichresis is a lien and such is expressly prohibited by section 116 of Act No. 2874, as amended. The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner acted in bad faith in taking possession of the land because he knew that the contract he made with Emiliana Ambrosio was an absolute deed of sale and,

Choco Notes



further, that the latter could not sell the land because it is prohibited by section 116. The Civil Code does not expressly define what is meant by bad faith, but section 433 provides that "Every person who is unaware of any flaw in his title, or in the manner of its acquisition, by which it is invalidated, shall be deemed a possessor in good faith"; and provides further, that "Possessors aware of such flaw are deemed possessors in bad faith". Article 1950 of the same Code, covered by Chapter II relative to prescription of ownership and other real rights, provides, in turn, that "Good faith on the part of the possessor consists in his belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner of the same, and could transmit the title thereto." We do not have before us a case of prescription of ownership, hence, the last article is not squarely in point. In resume, it may be stated that a person is deemed a possessor in bad faith when he knows that there is a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition, by which it is invalidated.

Borrowing the language of Article 433, the question to be answered is whether the petitioner should be deemed a possessor in good faith because he was unaware of any flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition by which it is invalidated. It will be noted that ignorance of the flaw is the keynote of the rule. From the facts found established by the Court of Appeals we can neither deduce nor presume that the petitioner was aware of a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition, aside from the prohibition contained in section 116. This being the case, the question is whether good faith may be premised upon ignorance of the laws. Manresa, commenting on article 434 in connection with the preceding article, sustains the affirmative. He says:

"We do not believe that in real life there are not many cases of good faith founded upon an error of law. When the acquisition appears in a public document, the capacity of the parties has already been passed upon by competent authority, and even established by appeals taken from final judgments and administrative remedies against the qualification of registrars, and the possibility of error is remote under such circumstances; but, unfortunately, private documents and even verbal agreements far exceed public documents in number, and while no one should be

ignorant of the law, the truth is that even we who are called upon to know and apply it fall into error not infrequently. However, a clear, manifest, and truly unexcusable ignorance is one thing, to which undoubtedly refers article 2, and another and different thing is possible and excusable error arising from complex legal principles and from the interpretation of conflicting doctrines.

But even ignorance of the law may be based upon an error of fact, or better still, ignorance of a fact is possible as to the capacity to transmit and as to the intervention of certain persons, compliance with certain formalities and appreciation of certain acts, and an error of law is possible in the interpretation of doubtful doctrines. (Manresa, Commentaries on the Spanish Civil Code. Volume IV, pp. 100, 101 and 102.)

According to this author, gross and inexcusable ignorance of law may not be the basis of good faith, but possible, excusable ignorance may be such basis. It is a fact that the petitioner is not conversant with the laws because he is not a lawyer. In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he proceeded on the well-grounded belief that he was not violating the prohibition regarding the alienation of the land. In taking possession thereof and in consenting to receive its fruits, he did not know, as clearly as a jurist does, that the possession and enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of the contract of antichresis and that the latter, as a lien, was prohibited by section 116. These considerations again bring us to the conclusion that, as to the petitioner, his ignorance of the provisions of section 116 is excusable and may, therefore, be the basis of his good faith. We do not give much importance to the change of the tax declaration, which consisted in making the petitioner appear as the owner of the land, because such an act may only be considered as a sequel to the change of possession and enjoyment of the fruits by the petitioner, to about which we have stated that the petitioner's ignorance of the law is possible and excusable. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner acted in good faith in taking possession of the land and enjoying its fruits.

Choco Notes



The petitioner being a possessor in good faith within the meaning of article 433 of the Civil Code and having introduced the improvements upon the land as such, the provisions of article 361 of the same Code are applicable; wherefore, the respondents are entitled to have the improvements and plants upon indemnifying the petitioner the value thereof which we fix at P3,000, as appraised by the trial court; or the respondents may elect to compel the petitioner to have the land by paying its market value to be fixed by the court of origin.

The respondents also prayed in their complaint that the petitioner be compelled to pay them the sum of P650, being the approximate value of the fruits obtained by the petitioner from the land. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the

Date post:	13-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jo-al-gealon
View:	23 times
Download:	0 times

Persons Cases

Documents