Basa vs Mercado Case Digest

Persons and Family Relations GR No. L- 42226 :

Facts: Honorable Hermogenes Reyes, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, allowed and
probated the last will and testament of Ines Basa, deceased. On January 30, 1932, the same judge
approved the account of the administrator of the estate, declared him the only heir of the deceased under
the will and closed the administration proceedings. On April 11, 1934, the herein petitioners-appellants
filed a motion in which they prayed that said proceedings be reopened and alleged that the court lacked
jurisdiction to act in the matter because there was a failure to comply with requirements as to the
publication of the notice of hearing prescribed in the following section of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Appellants claim that the provisions of section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been complied
with in view of the fact that although the trial judge, on May 29, 1931, ordered the publication of the
required notice for "three weeks successively" previous to the time appointed for the hearing on the will,
the first publication was on June 6, 1931, the third on June 20, 1931, and the hearing took place on the
27th of that month, only twenty-one days after the date of the first publication instead of three full weeks
before the day set for the hearing. The appellants also contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the
weekly newspaper, Ing Katipunan, in which the notice of hearing was published, was a newspaper of
general circulation in the Province of Pampanga.

Issues: Whether the 21 days requirement for publication be followed pursuant to the sec. 630 of Code of
Civil Procedure?

Whether the said Ing Katipunan newspaper considered a newspaper of general circulation?

Held: In view of the foregoing, it is held that the language used in section 630 of the Code of Civil
Procedure does not mean that the notice, referred to therein, should be published for three full weeks
before the date set for the hearing on the will. In other words the first publication of the notice need not
be made twenty-one days before the day appointed for the hearing. The record shows that Ing
Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation in view of the fact that it is published for the
dissemination of local news and general information; that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers; that it is published at regular intervals and that the trial court ordered the publication to be
made inIng Katipunan precisely because it was a "newspaper of general circulation in the Province of
Pampanga." The law does not require that publication of the notice, referred to in the Code of Civil
Procedure, should be made in the newspaper with the largest numbers is necessary to constitute a
newspaper of general circulation.

Tañada vs. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) 146 SCRA
446 (December 29, 1986)
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985)

FACTS:

Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked due process in demanding the disclosure of a number of Presidential
Decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by Law. The government argued that while
publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was otherwise provided, as when the decrees themselves
declared that they were to become effective immediately upon approval. The court decided on April 24, 1985 in
affirming the necessity for publication of some of the decrees. The court ordered the respondents to publish in the
official gazette all unpublished Presidential Issuances which are of general force and effect. The petitioners suggest
that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not. The publication
means complete publication, and that publication must be made in the official gazette. In a comment required by the
solicitor general, he claimed first that the motion was a request for an advisory opinion and therefore be dismissed.
And on the clause “unless otherwise provided” in Article 2 of the new civil code meant that the publication required
therein was not always imperative, that the publication when necessary, did not have to be made in the official
gazette.

Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that laws to be
valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees, letters of instructions,
general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations and administrative orders.

The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that petitioners
have no legal personality to bring the instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and
enforceable.

HELD:

Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself
provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give the general public adequate notice of
the various 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 ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It would be the height of
injustive to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law which he had no notice whatsoever, not
even a constructive one.

The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall be published in the Official Gazette…. The word “shall”
therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the constitutional right of
the people to be informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance and validity.

The publication of presidential issuances of 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. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general application which have not been published have
no force and effect.

TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)

FACTS:

This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24, 1985. Respondent argued that while
publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise” as when the decrees themselves declared
that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are not as to their
publication;
2. Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general circulation.

HELD:
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 legislature may make the law
effective immediately upon approval, or in any other date, without its previous publication.

“Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking, all laws relate to the
people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. A law without any bearing on the public
would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature. To be valid,
the law must invariably affect the public interest eve if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of
the people only, and not to the public as a whole.

All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity,
which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the
law.

Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere,
as a requirement for their effectivity. The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to
repeal or modify it if it finds it impractical.

The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as possible.

J. Cruz:

Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep
secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their existence and
contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure and give proper notice to the people.
The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that cannot faint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn.
You might also like: