1. LORENZO M. TAADAvs.HON. JUAN C. TUVERA(G.R. No.

L-63915 April 24, 1985) 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. 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 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 importantlegisiative 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 notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis maxim "ignorantialegis non excusat." It would be the height otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

general public adequate and conduct as citizens. for the application of the of injustice to punish or which he had no notice

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 BatasanPambansaand 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 denominaciongenerica de leyes, se comprendentambien los reglamentos, Realesdecretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Realesordinesdictadas de conformidad con lasmismaspor el Gobierno en uso de supotestad. 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. COMELEC7:
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 Bank8 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. 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. 10Neither 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.

DIGEST TAADA VS. TUVERA 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) FACTS: 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 ignoratialegisnominemexcusat. 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. TAADA 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.

G.R. No. 149454

May 28, 2004

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. CASA MONTESSORI INTERNATIONALE LEONARDO T. YABUT, respondents.

FACTS: On November 8, 1982, CASA Montessori International opened Current AccouNT with BPI with CASAs President Lebron as one of its authorized signatories. In 1991, after conducting an investigation, plaintiff discovered that nine of its checks had been encashed by a certain Sonny D. Santos since 1990 in the total amount of P782,000.00. It turned out that Santos with account at BPI Greenbelt Branch was a fictitious name used by third party defendant Leonardo T. Yabut who worked as external auditor of CASA. Third party defendant voluntarily admitted that he forged the signature of Lebron and encashed the checks. In 1991, plaintiff filed Complaint for Collection with Damages against defendant bank praying that the latter be ordered to reinstate the amount of P782,500.00 with interest. RTC rendered decision in favor of the plaintiff. CA modified decision holding CASA as contributory negligent hence ordered Yabut to reimburse BPI half the total amount claimed and CASA, the other half. It also disallowed attorneys fees and moral and exemplary damages. ISSUE: Whether or not moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees should be awarded. RULING: Moral and exemplary damages denied but atty.s fees granted.In the absence of a wrongful act or omission, or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded. The adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it.CASA was unable to identify the particular instance upon which its claim for moral damages is predicated. Neither bad faith nor negligence so gross that it amounts to malice can be imputed to BPI. Imposed by way of correction for the public good, exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. There is no bad faith on the part of BPI for paying the checks of CASA upon forged signatures. Therefore, the former cannot be said to have acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. The latter, having no right to moral damages, cannot demand exemplary damages. When the act or omission of the defendant has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect the latters interest, or where the court deems it just and equitable, attorneys fees may be recovered. In the present case, BPI persistently denied the claim of CASA under the NIL to recredit the latters account for the value of the forged checks. This denial constrained CASA to incur expenses and exert effort for more than ten years in order to protect its corporate interest in its bank account.

Consunji vs. CA
Facts: On Nov. 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of D.M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his death. On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego s widow, filed in the RTC of Pasig a compalint for damages against the deceased s employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer raised, among other defenses, the widow s prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego, ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff. On appeal by D.M. Consunji, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto. Hence, this petition. Issue: WON the petitioner (Consunji) is negligent and should be liable. Ruling. The deision of the CA is affirmed. Ratio: The claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment could be filed only under the Workmen s Compensation Law, to the exclusion of all further claims under other laws. The CA held that the case at bar came under exception because private resppondent was unaware of petitioner s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund.

[G.R. No. 149417. June 4, 2004] GLORIA SANTOS DUEAS, petitioner, vs. SANTOS SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, respondent. The facts of this case are as follows: Petitioner Gloria Santos Dueas is the daughter of the late Cecilio J. Santos who, during his lifetime, owned a parcel of land with a total area of 2.2 hectares located at General T. De Leon, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. In 1966, Cecilio had the realty subdivided into smaller lots, the whole forming the Cecilio J. Santos Subdivision (for brevity, Santos Subdivision). The then Land Registration Commission (LRC) approved the project and the National Housing Authority (NHA) issued the required Certificate of Registration and License to Sell. At the time of Cecilios death in 1988, there were already several residents and homeowners in Santos Subdivision. Sometime in 1997, the members of the SSHA submitted to the petitioner a resolution asking her to provide within the subdivision an open space for recreational and other community activities, in accordance with the provisions of P.D. No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1216. Petitioner, however, rejected the request, thus, prompting the members of SSHA to seek redress from the NHA. On April 25, 1997, the NHA General Manager forwarded the SSHA resolution to Romulo Q. Fabul, Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer of the HLURB in Quezon City. In a letter dated May 29, 1997, the Regional Director of the Expanded NCR Field Office, HLURB, opined that the open space requirement of P.D. No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1216, was not applicable to Santos Subdivision. SSHA then filed a petition/motion for reconsideration, docketed as HLURB Case No. REM070297-9821, which averred among others that: (1) P.D. No. 957 should apply retroactively to Santos Subdivision, notwithstanding that the subdivision plans were approved in 1966 and (2) Gloria Santos Dueas should be bound by the verbal promise made by her late father during his lifetime that an open space would be provided for in Phase III of Santos Subdivision, the lots of which were at that time already for sale. Petitioner denied any knowledge of the allegations of SSHA. She stressed that she was not a party to the alleged transactions, and had neither participation nor involvement in the development of Santos Subdivision and the sale of the subdivisions lots. As affirmative defenses, she raised the following: (a) It was her late father, Cecilio J. Santos, who owned and developed the subdivision, and she was neither its owner nor developer; (b) that this suit was filed by an unauthorized entity against a non-existent person, as SSHA and Santos Subdivision are not juridical entities, authorized by law to institute or defend against actions; (c) that P.D. No. 957 cannot be given retroactive effect to make it applicable to Santos Subdivision as the law does not expressly provide for its retroactive applicability; and (d) that the present petition is barred by laches.

On January 14, 1998, HLURB-NCR disposed of HLURB Case No. REM-070297-9821 in this wise: In view of the foregoing, the complaint is hereby dismissed. It is So Ordered. In dismissing the case, the HLURB-NCR office ruled that while SSHA failed to present evidence showing that it is an association duly organized under Philippine law with capacity to sue, nonetheless, the suit could still prosper if viewed as a suit filed by all its members who signed and verified the petition. However, the petition failed to show any cause of action against herein petitioner as (1) there is no evidence showing Santos-Dueas as the owner/developer or successor-in-interest of Cecilio Santos, who was the owner/developer and sole proprietor of Santos Subdivision; (2) the LRC-approved subdivision plan was bereft of any proviso indicating or identifying an open space, as required by P.D. No. 957, as amended, hence there was no legal basis to compel either Cecilio or his daughter Santos-Dueas, as his purported successor, to provide said space; and (3) the alleged verbal promise of the late Cecilio Santos was inadmissible as evidence under the dead mans statute. SSHA then appealed the NCR offices ruling to the HLURB Board of Commissioners. The latter body, however, affirmed the action taken by the HLURB-NCR office, concluding thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Office below is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. SO ORDERED. The HLURB Board decreed that there was no basis to compel the petitioner to provide an open space within Santos Subdivision, inasmuch as the subdivision plans approved on July 8, 1966, did not provide for said space and there was no law requiring the same at that time. It further ruled that P.D. No. 957 could not be given retroactive effect in the absence of an express provision in the law. Finally, it found the action time-barred since it was filed nine (9) years after the death of Cecilio. The Board noted that SSHA sought to enforce an alleged oral promise of Cecilio, which should have been done within the six-year prescriptive period provided for under Article 1145 of the Civil Code. Dissatisfied, respondent sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51601, was decided by the appellate court in this manner: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED--and the decision, dated January 20, 1999, of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in HLURB Case No. REM-A-980227-0032 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, this case is ordered REMANDED to the HLURB for the determination of the definitive land area that shall be used for open space in accordance with law and the rules and standards prescribed by the HLURB. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. In finding for SSHA, the appellate court relied upon Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon, which held that while P.D. No. 957 did not expressly provide for its retroactive application, nonetheless, it can be plainly inferred from its intent that it was to be given retroactive effect so as to extend its coverage even to those contracts executed prior to its effectivity in 1976. The Court of Appeals also held that the action was neither barred by prescription nor laches as the obligation of a subdivision developer to provide an open space is not predicated upon an oral contract, but mandated by law, hence, an action may be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the equitable principle of laches will not apply when the claim was filed within the reglementary period. Petitioner duly moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied on July 31, 2001. Hence, this petition grounded on the following assignment of errors: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW BY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF RESPONDENTS PETITION (WHICH ASSAILS THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HLURB) WHEN JURISDICTION THEREON IS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AS CLEARLY MANDATED BY SEC. 2, RULE XVIII OF THE 1996 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD. IT WAS GRAVE ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO HAVE ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION BELOW WHEN RESPONDENTS CLEARLY FAILED TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THEM UNDER THE LAW. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT SANTOS SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A NON-REGISTERED ORGANIZATION, LACKED THE LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SUE. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT SANTOS SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER; NEITHER WAS SANTOS SUBDIVISION, A NON-ENTITY, POSSESSED WITH CAPACITY TO BE SUED NOR IS PETITIONER GLORIA SANTOS-DUEAS A PROPER PARTY TO THE CASE, THE LATTER NOT BEING THE OWNER OR DEVELOPER OF SANTOS SUBDIVISION. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN SUBSTITUTING ITS FINDINGS WITH THAT OF THE ADJUDICATION BOARD AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HLURB WHEN THEIR DECISION IS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THEM.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

THE COURT OF APPEALS DEVIATED FROM THE EXISTING LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT RULED THAT P.D. 957 HAS RETROACTIVE APPLICATION -- WHEN THE LAW ITSELF DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ITS RETROACTIVITY AND THE EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE THEREON CLEARLY PRONOUNCED THAT IT HAS NO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION. TO PROVIDE RETROACTIVITY TO P.D. 957 WOULD CAUSE IMPAIRMENT OF VESTED RIGHTS.

VII. WHILE AS A GENERAL RULE, THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS BINDING ON THE SUPREME COURT, THE SAME IS NOT TRUE WHEN THE FORMERS CONCLUSION IS BASED ON SPECULATION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN OR ABSURD, THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, JUDGMENT IS BASED ON MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CONCERNED, AND IT WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH PARTIES. To our mind, the foregoing may be reduced into the following issues: (1) the applicability of the doctrine of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies; (2) the legal capacity of respondent to sue the petitioner herein; and (3) the retroactivity of P.D. No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1216. On the first issue, the petitioner contends that the filing of CA-G.R. SP No. 51601 was premature as SSHA failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. Petitioner submits that since Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rule of Civil Procedure does not mention the HLURB, the respondent should have appealed the decision of the HLURB Board in HLURB Case No. REM-A-9802270032 to the Office of the President prior to seeking judicial relief. In other words, it is the decision of the Office of the President, and not that of the HLURB Board, which the Court of Appeals may review. We find petitioners contentions bereft of merit. The principle of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is, under the factual circumstances of this case, inapplicable. While this Court has held that before a party is allowed to seek intervention of the courts, it is a pre condition that he avail himself of all administrative processes afforded him, nonetheless, said rule is not without exceptions. The doctrine is a relative one and is flexible depending on the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of each case. In the instant case, the questions posed are purely legal, namely: (1) whether the respondent had any right to demand an open space and the petitioner had any legal obligation to provide said open space within Santos Subdivision under P.D. No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1216, and (2) whether the action had already prescribed under Article 1145 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the Court of Appeals found that SSHA had sought relief from the Office of the President, but the latter forwarded the case to the HLURB. In view of the foregoing, we find that in this particular case, there was no need for SSHA to exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.

On the second issue, the petitioner claims that respondent SSHA failed to present any evidence showing that it is a legally organized juridical entity, authorized by law to sue or be sued in its own name. Thus, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it has no legal capacity to file this suit before the HLURB and the Court of Appeals. SSHA counters that it has the capacity to sue as an association, since it is a member of the Federation of Valenzuela Homeowners Association, Inc., which is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the alternative, the individual members of SSHA who signed both the resolution and the complaint in this case may, as natural persons, pursue the action. There is merit in petitioners contention. Under Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Article 44 of the Civil Code enumerates the various classes of juridical persons. Under said Article, an association is considered a juridical person if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its members. The records of the present case are bare of any showing by SSHA that it is an association duly organized under Philippine law. It was thus an error for the HLURB-NCR Office to give due course to the complaint in HLURB Case No. REM070297-9821, given the SSHAs lack of capacity to sue in its own name. Nor was it proper for said agency to treat the complaint as a suit by all the parties who signed and verified the complaint. The members cannot represent their association in any suit without valid and legal authority. Neither can their signatures confer on the association any legal capacity to sue. Nor will the fact that SSHA belongs to the Federation of Valenzuela Homeowners Association, Inc., suffice to endow SSHA with the personality and capacity to sue. Mere allegations of membership in a federation are insufficient and inconsequential. The federation itself has a separate juridical personality and was not impleaded as a party in HLURB Case No. REM070297-9821 nor in this case. Neither was it shown that the federation was authorized to represent SSHA. Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred. Hence, for failing to show that it is a juridical entity, endowed by law with capacity to bring suits in its own name, SSHA is devoid of any legal capacity, whatsoever, to institute any action. Anent the thirdissue, the petitioner ascribes error to the appellate court for holding that P.D. No. 957 has retroactive application. She points out that there is no retroactivity provision in the said decree. Hence, it cannot be applied retroactively pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The same holds true for P.D. No. 1216, which amended Section 31 of P.D. No. 957 and imposed the open space requirement in subdivisions. Petitioner stresses that P.D. No. 1216 only took effect on October 14, 1977 or more than ten (10) years after the approval of the subdivision plans of Cecilio Santos. Although it may seem that this particular issue, given our ruling on the first issue regarding the lack of capacity of SSHA to bring any action in its name, is now moot and academic, we are constrained to still address it.

This petition was brought to us not by respondent SSHA but by Gloria Santos Dueas who assails the appellate courts finding that our ruling in Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilonallows P.D. No. 957, as amended, to apply retroactively. We find merit in petitioners contention. Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilonis inapplicable. It is not on all fours with the instant case. The issue in Eugenio was the applicability of P.D. No. 957 to purchase agreements on lots entered into prior to its enactment where there was non-payment of amortizations, and failure to develop the subdivision. We held therein that although P.D. No. 957 does not provide for any retroactive application, nonetheless, the intent of the law of protecting the helpless citizens from the manipulations and machinations of unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers justify its retroactive application to contracts entered into prior to its enactment. Hence, we ruled that the non-payment of amortizations was justified under Section 23 of the said decree in view of the failure of the subdivision owner to develop the subdivision project. Unlike Eugenio, non-development of the subdivision is not present in this case, nor any allegation of non-payment of amortizations. Further, we have held in a subsequent case that P.D. No. 957, as amended, cannot be applied retroactively in view of the absence of any express provision on its retroactive application. Thus: Article 4 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. Thus, it is necessary that an express provision for its retroactive application must be made in the law. There being no such provision in both P.D. Nos. 957 and 1344, these decrees cannot be applied to a situation that occurred years before their promulgation. At any rate, our principal concern in this case is Section 31 of P.D. No. 957, an amendment introduced by P.D. No. 1216. Properly, the question should focus on the retroactivity of P.D. No. 1216 and not P.D. No. 957 per se. We have examined the text of P.D. No. 1216 and nowhere do we find any clause or provision expressly providing for its retroactive application. Basic is the rule that no statute, decree, ordinance, rule or regulation shall be given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. Hence, there is no legal basis to hold that P.D. No. 1216 should apply retroactively. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51601 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the HLURB dated January 20, 1999 sustaining that of its Regional Office is AFFIRMED and REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.