UNIVERSITY OF ST.

LA SALLE
BACOLOD CITY
Statutory Construction
Fiscal. Ma. Theresa B. Ditching.
Instruction: This Questionnaire is consist of two (2) parts: Part I deals with Theories &
Objectives . Part II deals with Problems and Case Analysis . All answers must be
supported with reasons using the applicable statutory rules, principles and law governing
the case.
PART I. THEORIES AND OBJECTIVES
1. Discuss the principle of VERBA LEGIS, RATIO LEGIS and MENS
LEGISLATORES.
2 How are Election Laws construed? Give a digest of the case applying the general
rule and another showing the exception.
3.

State the principle of the following Latin Maxims and cite the exception , if any:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Ejusdem Generis
Expressio Unios Est Exclusio Alterius
Casus Omissus pro omisso habendus est
Noscitur A Sociis

6. Briefly discuss the principle of Presumption of Constitutionality and how is

it applied.
7. What is the principle of an enrolled bill ? state exception, if any
8. Give the Rules in the Construction of the following statutes:
a. Penal Laws
b. Tax Laws
c. Labor Laws
PART II. PROBLEMS AND CASE ANALYSIS
CASE NO. 1
Don Tagum Ma Tayon executed a Notorial Will leaving his only heir his
nephew Mr. Sua Pang . During the probate of the will, it was found that the second page
of the said Notarial Will does not bear the signature of the testator, only the latters thumb
mark appears and the signature of one of the attesting witnesses is lacking, although the
first and the last page where the attestation clause appears, the signature of the said
attesting witness appeared. Ms. Ma Suerte, another niece of the testator contested the
probate of the will on the ground that it failed to substantially comply with the
requirements under Article 805 of the Civil Code. She contended that because of this
fact, the estate of the testator must be distributed intestate, following the order of legal
succession and thus, she will also be entitled. Is the claim of Ms. Suerte tenable?
CASE NO 2.
An information was filed charging the accused with illegal possession of deadly
weapon in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. On a motion to quash filed by the
accused, the trial judge issued an order dismissing the information on the ground that the
same did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by PD no. 9 because it

2
failed to state one essential element of the crime, viz., the carrying outside of the
accuseds residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the
occasion of, connected with or related to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized
lawlessness or public disorder.
On the other hand, the prosecution argues that the prohibited acts need not be
related to subversive activities, that the act prescribed is essentially malum prohibitum
penalized for reasons of public policy
Whose argument do you subscribed? State ruling in the light of the ruling in
People vs. Purisima L-42050-56
CASE NO.3
Cristy and Joel cohabited without the benefit of a valid marriage. Because
of Joels great love fore Cristy, he donated his house and lot in Forbes Park to the latter
on her birthday. Unfortunately, Joel died the following year and his estate is now under
the administration of his sister, Maylanie.
Maylanie sought the nullification of Joels donation of the house and lot to
Cristy invoking the provision of Art 133 of the Civil Code which provides:
Art. 133 EVERY DONATION BETWEEN THE SPOUSES
DURING THE MARIAGE SHALL BE VOID
Cristy raised in her defense the issue of their common law relationship,
stating that since she and Joel are not legally married, therefore, the aforementioned
provision does not apply in their case. Thus, the donation is considered valid. If you are
Maylanies counsel, how would your counter the defense interposed by Cristy?
CASE NO 4.
An action was filed by the City of Bacolod to expropriate a parcel of land
where an ancient Chinese Cemetary was located. This is for the planned road expansion
project of the City. The Chinese opposed on the ground that the city has no CLEAR
authority to expropriate the cemetery as it was already devoted for a public purpose and
that there are other areas that can be subjected for the intended project. The City
proceeded nonetheless notwithstanding the opposition and tendered a certain amount of
money as just compensation without prior consultation with the oppositor (Chinese
Community) stating that said powers emanate from the Constitution. Is the act of the
City in expropriating the subject property valid? Reason.
- NOTHING FOLLOWS-