Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Part 1

Tanada vs Tuvera
>The law itself makes a list of what should be published
Facts: in the Official Gazette. The publication of all presidential
issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
>Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked due applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential
process in demanding the disclosure of a number of decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for
Presidential Decrees which they claimed had not been their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the
published as required by Law. people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within
this category.
>The government argued that while publication was
necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was otherwise >Other presidential issuances which apply only to
provided, as when the decrees themselves declared that particular persons or class of persons such as
they were to become effective immediately upon administrative and executive orders need not be
approval. published on the assumption that they have been
circularized to all concerned.
>The court decided on April 24, 1985 in affirming the Umali vs. Estanislao
necessity for publication of some of the decrees. The
court ordered the respondents to publish in the official Facts:
gazette all unpublished Presidential Issuances which are
of general force and effect. >Congress enacted Rep. Act 7167, entitled "AN ACT
>The petitioners suggest that there should be no ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS ALLOWABLE TO
distinction between laws of general applicability and INDIVIDUALS FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES TO THE
those which are not. The publication means complete POVERTY THRESHOLD LEVEL, AMENDING FOR THE
publication, and that publication must be made in the PURPOSE SECTION 29, PARAGRAPH (L), ITEMS (1)
>In a comment required by the solicitor general, he
claimed first that the motion was a request for an > The said act was signed and approved by the
advisory opinion and therefore be dismissed. And on the President on 19 December 1991 and published on 14
clause unless otherwise provided in Article 2 of the January 1992 in "Malaya" a newspaper of general
new civil code meant that the publication required circulation.
therein was not always imperative, that the publication
when necessary, did not have to be made in the official >On 26 December 1991, respondents promulgated
gazette. Revenue Regulations No. 1-92.

Issue: >On 27 February 1992, the petitioner in G.R. No.

104037, a taxpayer and a resident of Gitnang Bayan
W/N publication in the Official Gazette is still required Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, filed a petition for
considering the clause in Article 2 unless otherwise mandamus for himself and in behalf all individual Filipino
provided. taxpayers, to COMPEL the respondents to implement
Rep. Act 7167 with respect to taxable income of
Held: individual taxpayers earned or received on or after 1
January 1991 or as of taxable year ending 31 December
>Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette 1991.
is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself
does not provide for its effectivity date-for then the date Issue:
of publication is material for determining its date of
effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its W/N Rep. Act 7167 took effect upon its approval by the
publication-but not when the law itself provides for the President on 19 December 1991, or on 30 January
date when it goes into effect. 1992, i.e., after fifteen (15) days following its publication
on 14 January 1992 in the "Malaya" a newspaper of
>Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to general circulation
the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that
said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of Held:
publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself
1 for the date of its effectivity. >Reiterating Tanada v. Tuvera, The clause "unless it is
otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and
>Without such notice and publication, there would be no not to the requirement of publication itself which cannot
basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis in any event be omitted.
non excusat." That duty must be enforced if the
Constitutional right of the people to be informed on >This clause does not mean that the legislator may
matters of public concern is to be given substance and make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on
reality. any other date without its previous publication.
RJP Notes
Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Part 1
>The loan became ultimately due on 31 January 1960,
>Publication is indispensable in every case, but the but was not paid on that date, with the debtors asking for
legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual an extension of 3 months, or up to 30 April 1960.
fifteen (15) day period shall be shortened or extended.
>On 17 March 1960, the parties executed another loan
>Accordingly, the Court rules that Rep. Act 7167 took document. Payment of the P10,000.00 was extended to
effect on 30 January 1992, which is after fifteen (15) 30 April 1960,but the obligation was increased by
days following its publication on 14 January 1992 in the P6,000 which formed part of the principal obligation to
"Malaya." answer for attorneys fees, legal interest, and other cost
PNB vs Vega incident thereto to be paid unto the creditor and his
successors in interest upon the termination of this
Facts: agreement.

>On January 2, 1992, the Congress enacted R.A. 7169 >The defendants again failed to pay their obligation.On
providing for the rehabilitation of Philippine Veterans 23 September 1960, the plaintiff instituted the collection
Bank. case before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.

>It was published in the Official Gazette in February 24, >The defendants admitted the P10,000.00 principal
1992. Thereafter, petitioners filed with the labor tribunals obligation, but claimed that the additional P6,000.00
their residual claims for benefits and for reinstatement constituted usurious interest.
upon reopening the bank.
>On 26 June 1961, the Trial Court rendered decision
>In May 1992, the Central Bank issued a certificate of ordering defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount of
authority allowing the PVB to reopen despite the late P10,000.00plus the further sum of P6,000.00. The
mandate for rehabilitation and reopening, defendants appealed before the then court of
Appeals,which endorsed it to the Supreme Court stating
>Judge Vega continued with the liquidation proceedings that the issue involved was one of law.
of the bank alleging further that RA 7169 became
effective only on March 10, 1992 or 15 days after its Issue:
publication in the Official Gazette on February 24, 1992.
W/N Whether the allegation of usury should be made in
Issue: writing and under oath, pursuant to Section 9 of the
Usury Law.
W/N RA 7169 became effective on January 2, 1992.
>Under Article 1354 of the Civil Code, in regards to the
> Yes. RA 7169 expressly provided that it should take agreement of the parties relative to the P6,000.00
effect upon its approval. Aquino signed it into law on obligation, "it is presumed that it exists and is lawful,
January 2, 1992. Thereafter, said law became effective unless the debtor proves the contrary".
on said date.
>No evidentiary hearing having been held, it has to be
>Its subsequent publication was not necessary for its concluded that defendants had not proven that the
effectivity. RA 7169 is of internal nature and not have P6,000.00 obligation was illegal. Confirming the Trial
general application thus it took effect on the date Court's finding, we view the P6,000.00 obligation as
provided for and hence was rightfully invoked by the liquidated damages suffered by plaintiff, as of March 17,
petitioners. 1960, representing loss of interest income, attorney's
fees and incidentals.
>The Supreme Court upheld that while as a rule laws
take effect after 15 days following completion of their >The main thrust of defendants' appeal is the allegation
publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of in their Answer that the P6,000.00 constituted usurious
general circulation in the Philippines, the legislature has interest. They insist the claim of usury should have been
the authority to provide for exceptions as indicated in the deemed admitted by plaintiff as it was "not denied
clause unless otherwise provided. specifically and under oath".
Liam Liaw vs Olympic Sawmill
Section 9 of the Usury Law (Act 2655) provided:
SEC. 9. The person or corporation sued shall file its
>On 7 September 1957, Liam Law (plaintiff) loaned answer in writing under oath to any complaint brought or
P10,000.00, without interest, to Olympic Sawmill Co. filed against said person or corporation before a
and Elino Lee Chi, as the latters managing partner competent court to recover the money or other personal
(defendants). or real property, seeds or agricultural products, charged
or received in violation of the provisions of this Act. The

RJP Notes
Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Part 1
lack of taking an oath to an answer to a complaint will ten (10) days of every period thereof. (This was
mean the admission of the facts contained in the latter. challenged by petitioner by alleging that private
respondent Salas waived his right to bail in the separate
>The foregoing provision envisages a complaint filed case mentioned above.)
against an entity which has committed usury, for the
recovery of the usurious interest paid. In that case, if the Issue:
entity sued shall not file its answer under oath denying
the allegation of usury, the defendant shall be deemed to Whether the right to bail may, under certain
have admitted the usury. The provision does not apply to circumstances, be denied to a person who is charged
a case, as in the present, where it is the defendant, not with an otherwise bailable offense, and whether such
the plaintiff, who is alleging usury. right may be waived.

>Moreover, for sometime now, usury has been legally Held:

non-existent. Interest can now be charged as lender and
borrower may agree upon. The Rules of Court in regards 1. We agree with the respondent court that bail cannot
to allegations of usury, procedural in nature, should be be denied to the private respondent for he is charged
considered repealed with retroactive effect. with the crime of rebellion as defined in Article 134 of the
Revised Penal Code to which is attached the penalty of
>Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be prision mayor and a fine not exceeding
construed as applicable to actions pending and P20,000.00. It is, therefore, a bailable offense
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural Therefore, before conviction bail is either a matter of
laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent. right or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the
offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than
... Section 24(d), Republic Act No. 876, known as the reclusion perpetua. To that extent the right is absolute.
Arbitration Law, which took effect on 19 December 1953, Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is
and may be retroactively applied to the case at bar punishable by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter
because it is procedural in nature. ... of discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is
People vs Donato strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.However,
under the present state of the law, rebellion is no longer
Facts: punishable by prision mayor and fine not exceeding
P20,000.00. Republic Act No. 6968 approved on
>Private respondent Rodolfo Salas alias Commander 24October 1990 and which took effect after publication
Bilog raised publicly and took arms throughout the in at least two newspapers of general circulation,
country against the Government of the Republic of the amended, among others, Article 135 of the Revised
Philippines for the purpose of overthrowing the present Penal Code by increasing the penalty for rebellion to
Government. Reclusion Perpetua. However, this amendatory law
cannot apply to the private respondent for acts allegedly
>That from 1970 to the present, the above-named committed prior to its effectivity. It is not favorable to him
accused in their capacities as leaders of the aforenamed (a.k.a. no retroactive effect)
organizations (NPA and CPP),in conspiracy with, and in
support of the cause of, the organizations 2. We agree with Petitioner that private respondent has,
aforementioned, engaged themselves in war against the however, waived his right to bail in G.R. No. 76009.
forces of the government, destroying property or
committing serious violence, and other acts in the CUSTODY - "Custody" has been held to mean nothing
pursuit of their unlawful purpose. less than actual imprisonment. It is also defined as the
detainer of a person by virtue of a lawful authority, or the
>In a separate petition for habeas corpus (separate case "care and possession of a thing or person."When the
GR 76009) for private respondent Salas was filed with parties in G.R. No. 76009 stipulated that:
the SC but was dismissed on the basis of the agreement b. Petitioner Rodolfo Salas will remain in legal
of the parties under which herein private respondent "will custody and face trial before the court having
remain in legal custody and will face trial before the custody over his person.
court having custody over his person" and the warrants
for the arrest of his co-accused are deemed recalled and they simply meant that Rodolfo Salas, herein
they shall be immediately released but shall submit respondent, will remain in actual physical custody of the
themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their court, or in actual confinement or detention, as
3 distinguished from the stipulation concerning his co-
petitioners, who were to be released in view of the recall
>In his Order of 7 July 1987, public respondent Judge of the warrants of arrest against them; they agreed,
Donato, taking into consideration Executive Order No. however, "to submit themselves to the court having
187, granted private respondent's petition for bail, fixed jurisdiction over their persons ." Note should be made of
the bail bond at P30,000.00 and imposed upon private the deliberate care of the parties in making a fine
respondent the additional condition that he shall report distinction between legal custody and court having
to the court once every two (2) months within the first custody over the person.
RJP Notes
Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Part 1

In respect to Rodolfo Salas and court having jurisdiction It presupposes that the person applying for it should be
over the persons of his co-accused. Such a fine in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of liberty.
distinction was precisely intended to emphasize the Consequently, having agreed in G.R. No. 76009 to
agreement that Rodolfo Salas will not be released, but remain in legal custody, private respondent had
should remain in custody. unequivocably waived his right to bail.

BAIL - In defining bail as: VALIDITY

. . . the security given for But, is such waiver valid?
the release of a person in custody of the law We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the
,... constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right
Section 1 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court which is personal to the accused and whose waiver
admits no other meaning or interpretation for the term "in would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy,
custody of the law" than that as above indicated. The morals, or good customs,or prejudicial to a third person
purpose of bail is to relieve an accused from with a right recognized by law.
imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his
appearance at the trial.

RJP Notes