Pesigan v. Angeles Digest

GR L-64279

Civil law, when Laws take effect

Facts: Petitioners Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan, carabao dealers transported on April 2. 1982, twenty-six (26) carabaos & a calf from Camarines Norte with Batangas as its destination. They were provided with health certificates from the provincial veterinarian and three (3) other permits attesting that the cattle was not part of lose, stolen or questionable animals.

Despite this, the said cattle was confiscated by respondents Zenarosa and Miranda, who were respectively the police station commander and provincial veterianarian of Basud, Camarines Norte. The confiscation was on the basis of said EO 626-A which was dated October 25, 1980 but was published in theOfficial Gazette on June 14, 1982.

Executive Order 626-A 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".

The Pesigans filed an action for replevin against herein respondents for the recovery of the subject cattle but this could not be executed by the sheriff. Subsequently, the judge dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. Hence, the petitioners filed an appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue: Whether or not Executive Order No. 626-A dated October 25, 1980, providing for the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of cattle transported from one province to another, can be enforced even before its actual publication in the Official Gazette of June 14, 1982

HELD: NO

The Supreme Court held that EO 626-A is a penal regulation published more than two months after the confiscation of the cattle or in June 14, 1982. Hence, it became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in Article 2 of the Civil Code. It should therefore not be enforced against the petitioners. 

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 v Que Po). 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.

Note: The word "laws" in Article 2 of the NCC also includes circulars and regulations which prescribe penalties.

People v. Veridiano Digest

Civil Law, When laws take effect, Publication of laws

Issue: w/n BP 22 which was circulated a month after private respondent issued the dishonored check is applicable

Facts: On 2nd week of May in 1979, private respondent Benito Go Bio Jr. issued a check amounting to P200,000 to one Filipinas Tan. Said check was subsequently dishonored and despite repreated demands, the respondent failed to make the necessary payment hence the filing of charges against him for violation of BP 22 or the Bouncing Check law.

Go Bio filed a Motion to Quash alleging that the information did not charge an offense on ground that BP 22 has not yet taken effect when the offense was committed on May 1979. Said law took into effect on June 29, 1979. The prosecution opposed the motion and contended that the date of the dishonor of the check -- September 26, 1979, is the date of the commission of the offense, hence BP 22 is applicable.

The respondent judge granted Go Bio's motion and dismissed the criminal action. Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that BP 22 was published in the Official Gazette on April 4, 1979, and hence became effective 15 days thereafter or on April 24, 1979. PR contends however that said publication was only released on June 14, 1979 but since the questioned check was issued about the second week of May 1979, then he could not have violated BP 22 because it was not yet released for circulation at the time.

Issue: W/N BP 22 was already in effect when the offense was committed

HELD: NO. It is proved that the penal statute in question was made public or circulated only on June 14, 1979 and not on its printed date of April 9, 1979. Publication of the law is necessary so that the public can be apprised of the contents and or penalties of a penal statute before it can be bound by it. 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. Hence, the accused could not have committed the alleged crime. When the alleged offense was committed there was still no law penalizing it.

The term "publication" in BP 22 must be given the ordinary accepted meaning -- or to make known to the people in general. Moreover, if BP 22 intended to make the printed date of issue of the Gazette as the point of reference in the determination of its the effectivity, it could have provided a special effectivity provision.

Puzon v Abellera Digest

G.R. No. 75082 July 31, 1989

Retroactivity

Facts:

The oppositor appellee Alejandra Abellera (substituted upon her death by Domondon) was the owner of the subject 2-hectare parcel of land situated in Baguio City, a land which was previously part of the public domain but was titled pursuant to RA 931. In another case Republic v Pio Marcos, the Supreme Court declared that all titles issued under RA 931 are null and void since the said Act was applicable only to places covered by cadastral proceedings, and not to the City of Baguio which was covered by a townsite reservation.

This same ruling was subsequently incorporated into a law, P.D. 1271 with the title "An act nullifying decrees of registration and certificates of title covering lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation pursuant to RA 931 which took effect on December 22, 1977. PD 1271 considered as valid certain titles of lands that are alienable and disposable under certain conditions and for other purposes. Hence, the lot in question was reverted to the public domain.

The subject lots were sold in an auction sale due to the non-payment of taxes.\Petitioner took interest and subsequently won the bid. A year after, a certificate of sale was issued. In this connection, the petitioner filed a case to consolidate his ownership of the lots. Meanwhile, Domondon found out about the auction sale and filed an opposition to the petition for consolidation filed by petitioner. The trial court ruled that said auction sale is null and void and that the assessments were illegally made. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence this petition with petitioner contending that the tax assessments were valid and that PD 1271 has a curative effect.

Issue: Whether or not PD 1271 can be applied retroactively

YES. Article 4 of the New Civil Code prohibits the retroactive application of laws unless expressly provided therein, such rule allows some exceptions and PD 1271 falls under one of the exceptions. The intent of PD 1271 is necessarily to make such titles valid from the time they were issued. This implies that the intent of the law is to recognize the effects of certain acts of ownership done in good faith by persons with Torrens titles issued in their favor before the cut-off date stated, honestly believing that they had validly acquired the lands. And such would be possible only by validating all the said titles issued before 31 July 1973, effective on their respective dates of issue. However, the validity of these titles would not become operative unless and after the conditions stated in PD 1271 are met.