RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, ETC. ET AL G.R. No.

180050, May 12, 2010 Doctrines: The requirement of a contiguous territory and the requirement of a land area of at least 2,000 square kilometers are distinct and separate requirements for land area. The exemption under Sec461(b)pertains only to the requirement of territorial contiguity. Facts: W hen the Dinagat Islands was proclaimed a new province on December 3, 2006, it had an official population of only 106,951 based on the 2000 Census of Population conducted by the National Statistics Office (NSO), which population is short of the statutory requirement of 250,000 inhabitants. Moreover, the land area of the province failed to comply with the statutory requirement of 2,000 square kilometers. R.A. No. 9355 specifically states that the Province of Dinagat Islands contains an approximate land area of 802.12 square kilometers. Hence, Republic Act No. 9355, otherwise known as An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands was held unconstitutional and the provision in Article 9 (2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 stating, "The land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands," was declared NULL and VOID. Respondents instead asserted that the province, which is composed of more than one island, is exempted from the land area requirement based on the provision in the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 (IRR), specifically paragraph 2 of Article 9 which states that "[t]he land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands." Issue: W hether Dinagat Islands is exempted from the land area requirement Held: No. There are two requirements for land area: (1 ) the land area must be contiguous; and (2) the land area must be sufficient to provide for such basic services and facilities to meet the requirements of its populace. The requirement of a contiguous territory and the requirement of a land area of at leas t2,000 square kilometers are distinct and separate requirements for land area. The exemption above pertains only to the requirement of territorial contiguity. It clearly states that the requirement of territorial contiguity may be dispensed with in the case of a province comprising two or more islands, or is separated by a chartered city or cities which do not contribute to the income of the province. Nowhere in paragraph (b) is it expressly stated or may it be implied that when a province is composed of two or more islands, or when the territory of a province is separated by a chartered city or cities, such province need not comply with the land area requirement of at least 2,000 square kilometers or the requirement in paragraph (a) (i) of Section 461of the Local Government Code

Joemar Ortega vs. People of the Philippines.GR. 151085 (August 20, 2008)Facts: Petitioner was 13 years old when he raped a 6 year old girl This act was committed sometime in 1996. The lower courts convicted him of rape with criminal and civil liability imposed. During the pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court, RA 9344was passed which provided that at the time of the commission of the crime, a child whose age was 15years old and below will be exempted from criminal liability. ISSUE: Whether criminal liability attachs although there were already convictions in the lower court. Stated otherwise, whether the retroactive effect of the law is not applicable in the case at bar. HELD. NO. Although there is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches. Sec. 15 of RA 9344exempts a child below fifteen from criminal liability if at the time of the commission of the crime he is below fifteen (15) years of age. Upon assessment, the offender will be released to the custody of his parents or be referred to prevention programs. It is given a retroactive since penal laws which are favourable to the accused are give retroactive effect(Art 22 of the Revised Penal code)Even if the crime committed is heinous a sin this case - criminal liability does not attach. The flaw in the logic of the law should be addressed in Congress and not in courts. This is to

Joseph Estrada vs Macapagal & Desierto

De Jure vs De Facto President

Estrada alleges that he is the President on leave while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims she is the President. From the beginning of Eraps term, he was plagued by problems that slowly but surely eroded his popularity. His sharp descent from power started on October 4, 2000. Singson, a longtime friend of the Estrada, went on air and accused the Estrada, his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. The expos immediately ignited reactions of rage. OnJanuary 19, the fall from power of the petitioner appeared inevitable. At 1:20 p.m., the petitioner informed Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected. January 20 turned to be the day of surrender. On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, respondent Arroyo immediately discharged the powers and duties of the Presidency. After his fall from the pedestal of power, the Eraps legalproblems appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion. ISSUE: Whether or not Arroyo is a legitimate (de jure) president. HELD: The SC holds that the resignation of Estrada cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacaang. In the press release containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President; (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. Estradas reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press release was petitioners valedictory, his final act of farewell. His presidency is now in the past tense. Even if Erap can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.

ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee. Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. SANCHEZ, J.: Claim for the refund of P722.84 paid in 1956 as special import tax on pump parts imported by petitioner. Petitioner's ground: The imported articles "consist of equipment and spare parts for its own exclusive use and therefore were 1 exempt from special import tax", by the terms of Section 6, Republic Act 1394. The Collector of Customs of Manila rejected the claim. Respondent Acting Commissioner of Customs, on appeal, affirmed the rejection. Petitioner's case 2 suffered the same fate in the Court of Tax Appeals. We are asked to review the Court on Tax Appeals' judgment. The interrelated errors assigned in petitioner's brief funnel down to one controlling legal issue: Are the imported pump parts exempt from the payment of special import tax? By Section 1 of Republic Act 1394, a special import tax is imposed "on all goods, articles or products imported or brought into the Philippines" during the period from 1956 up to and including 1965 in accordance with the schedule of rates therein provided. Exempt from this tax, by express mandate of Section 6 of the same law, inter alia, are "machinery, equipment, accessories, and spare parts, for the use of industries, miners, mining enterprises, planters and farmers". Petitioner is engaged in the industry of processing gasoline, and manufacturing lubricating oil, grease and tin containers. Petitioner owns gasoline stations with pumps, which are leased to and operated by gasoline dealers. It sells gasoline to these dealers. The pump parts imported by petitioner in 1956 were intended, installed and actually used by gasoline dealers in pumping gasoline from under around tanks into customers' motor vehicles. These pump parts, in other words, are used in the sale at retail of gasoline not by petitioner but by lessees of gasoline stations. In this factual environment, it is quite evident that the pump parts are not used in petitioner's industry of processing gasoline, or manufacturing lubricating oil, grease and tin containers. The drive of petitioner's argument is that marketing of its gasoline product "is corollary to or incidental to its industrial 3 operations." But this contention runs smack against the familiar rules that exemption from taxation is not 4 5 favored, and that exemptions in tax statutes are never presumed. Which are but statements in adherence to the ancient rule that exemptions from taxation are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor 6 of the taxing authority. Tested by this precept, we cannot indulge in expansive construction and write into the law an exemption not therein set forth. Rather, we go by the reasonable assumption that where the State has granted in express terms certain exemptions, those are the exemptions to be considered, and no more. Since the law states that, to be tax exempt, equipment and spare parts should be "for the use of industries", the coverage herein should not be enlarged to include equipment and spare parts for use in dispensing gasoline at retail. In comparable factual backdrop, this Court has held that tax exemption in connection with the manufacture of asbestos roof does not extend 7 to the installation thereof. Upon the facts and the law, we vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals under review. Costs against petitioner. So ordered. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur. Barrera, J., is on leave.

DE VILLA vs.CA FACTS: On October 5, 1987, petitioner Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the RTC Branch 145, Makati with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Petitioner allegedly issued a check payable to private respondent, Roberto Lorayez, in the total amount of U.S. $2,500.00 equivalent to P50,000.00 knowing that at the time of issue he had no sufficient funds in or credit with drawee bank for payment of such check in full upon its presentment. The check was Petitioner failed to pay respondent despite receipt of notice of such dishonor. Petitioner moved to dismiss the information maintaining that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged since the check was payable in dollars (foreign currency) and drawn against a foreign bank. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was subsequently denied by the RTC. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA seeking to declare the nullity of RTC orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. Thus, petitioner filed petition with SC ISSUE: 1.Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Makati has jurisdiction over the case in question. 2.Whether or not a check drawn against the dollar account with a foreign bank is covered by BP Blg. 22 RULING: The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. I. WON RTC has jurisdiction The RTC has jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time of commencement of the action. The Rules of Court provide that be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or any of the essential ingredients thereof took place. The court also stated that jurisdiction or venue is determined by the allegations in the information. In this particular case, the information filed against petitioner specifically alleged that the offense was committed in Makati, and therefore, the same is controlling and sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the RTC of Makati. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused upon the filing of a complaint or information in court which initiates a criminal action. Moreover, in the case of Que v. People of the Philippines, the court held that the determinative factor in determining venue is the place of the issuance of the check. On the matter of venue for violation of BP 22, the Ministry of Justice laid down the following guidelines the pertinent portion of which reads: (1)Venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was executed and delivered; (2)the place where the check was written, signed or dated does not necessarily fix the place where it was executed, as what is of decisive importance is the delivery thereof which is the final act essential to its consummation as an obligation It is undisputed that the check in question was executed and delivered by the petitioner to private respondent at Makati. II. WON a check drawn against the dollar account with a foreign bank is covered by BP Blg. 22 The court ruled that under the B.P. Blg. 22, foreign checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in the Philippines though payable outside thereof are within the coverage of said law. It is a cardinal principle in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish courts should not distinguish and where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it. And where there is doubt as to what a provision of a statute means, the meaning put to the provision during the legislative deliberation or discussion on the bill may be adopted. The records of the Batasan, Vol. III, unmistakably show that the intention of the lawmakers is to apply BP Blg. 22 to whatever currency may be the subject thereof

CASCO Philippines vs Gimenez Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. was engaged in the production of synthetic resin glues used primarily in the production of plywood. The main components of the said glue are urea and formaldehyde which are both being imported abroad. Pursuant to RA 2609 (Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law), the Central Bank of the Philippines issued on July 1, 1959, its Circular No. 95, fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions. To supplement the circular, the Bank later promulgated a memorandum establishing the procedure for applications for exemption from the payment of said fee, as provided in same law. In compliance, Casco paid the fees but later moved for reimbursement as Casco maintained that urea and formaldehyde are exempted from such fees. The CBP issued the vouchers for refund (pursuant to Resolution 1529 of the CBP) but the banks auditor refused to honor the vouchers since he maintained that this is in contrast to the provision of Sec 2, par 18 of RA 2609 which provides: The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of section one hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the following: xxx xxx xxx XVIII. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users. The Auditor General, Gimenez, affirmed the ruling of CBPs auditor. Casco maintains that the term urea formaldehyde appearing in this provision should be construed as urea and formaldehyde He further contends that the bill approved inCongress contained the copulative conjunction and between the terms urea and, formaldehyde, and that the members of Congress intended to exempt urea and formaldehyde separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin glue called urea formaldehyde, not the latter a finished product, citing in support of this view the statements made on the floor of the Senate, during the consideration of the bill before said House, by members thereof. ISSUE: Whether or not the term urea formaldehyde should be construed as urea and formaldehyde. HELD: Urea formaldehyde is not a chemical solution. It is the synthetic resin formed as a condensation product from definite proportions of urea and formaldehyde under certain conditions relating to temperature, acidity, and time of reaction. This produce when applied in water solution and extended with inexpensive fillers constitutes a fairly low cost adhesive for use in the manufacture of plywood. Urea formaldehyde is clearly a finished product, which is patently distinct and different from urea and formaldehyde, as separate articles used in the manufacture of the synthetic resin known as urea formaldehyde The opinions of any member of Congress does not represent the entirety of the Congress itself. What is printed in the enrolled bill would be conclusive upon the courts. It is well settled that the enrolled bill which uses the term urea formaldehyde instead of urea and formaldehyde is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive on which the SC cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our democratic system the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.

Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform

Equal Protection

These are 3 cases consolidated questioning the constitutionality of the Agrarian Reform Act. Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. RA 3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code, had already been enacted by Congress on August 8, 1963. This was substantially superseded almost a decade later by PD 27, which was promulgated on Oct 21, 1972, along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners. On July 17, 1987, Cory issued EO 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by PP 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and EO 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation. Afterwhich is the enactment of RA 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which Cory signed on June 10. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. In considering the rentals as advance payment on the land, the executive order also deprives the petitioners of theirproperty rights as protected by due process. The equal protection clause is also violated because the order places the burden of solving the agrarian problems on the owners only of agricultural lands. No similar obligation is imposed on the owners of other properties. The petitioners maintain that in declaring the beneficiaries under PD 27 to be the owners of the lands occupied by them, EO 228 ignored judicial prerogatives and so violated due process. Worse, the measure would not solve the agrarian problem because even the small farmers are deprived of their lands and the retention rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In his comment the Sol-Gen asserted that the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class and should be differently treated. The Comment also suggests the possibility ofCongress first distributing public agricultural lands and scheduling the expropriation of private agricultural lands later. From this viewpoint, the petition for prohibition would be premature. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection clause. HELD: The SC ruled affirming the Sol-Gen. The argument of the small farmers that they have been denied equal protection because of the absence of retention limits has also become academic under Sec 6 of RA 6657. Significantly, they too have not questioned the area of such limits. There is also the complaint that they should not be made to share the burden of agrarian reform, an objection also made by the sugar planters on the ground that they belong to a particular class with particular interests of their own. However, no evidence has been submitted to the Court that the requisites of a valid classification have been violated. Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements:

(1) it must be based on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class. The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory. Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of other properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this matter. In any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights.

Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997 Facts: A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. Petitioners, who are members of the House of Representatives, charged that there is violation of the rules of the House which petitioners claim are constitutionallymandated so that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution. The law originated in the House of Representatives. The Senate approved it with certain amendments. A bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate versions of the bill. The bicameral committee submitted its report to the House. During the interpellations, Rep. Arroyo made an interruption and moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. But after a roll call, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum. The interpellation then proceeded. After Rep. Arroyos interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Albano moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The Chair called out for objections to the motion. Then the Chair declared: There being none, approved. At the same time the Chair was saying this, Rep. Arroyo was asking, What is thatMr. Speaker? The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Thus, although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority Leaders motion, the approval of the conference committee report had by then already been declared by the Chair. On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and certified by the respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress. The enrolled bill was signed into law by President Ramos. Issue: Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House Held: Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in character. They are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them as they are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concern with their observance. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members has agreed to a particular measure. But this is subject to qualification. Where the construction to be given to a rule affects person other than members of the legislative body, the question presented is necessarily judicial in character. Even its validity is open to question in a case where private rights are involved. In the case, no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a member who, instead of seeking redress in the House, chose totransfer the dispute to the Court. The matter complained of concerns a matter of internal procedure of the House with which the Court should not be concerned. The claim is not that there was no quorum but only that Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyos earlier motion to adjourn for lack of quorum had already been defeated, as the roll call established the existence of a quorum. The question of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially when the quorum is obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House.

Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD, 526 SCRA 130 (2007) Facts: Petitioners are domestic corporations and proprietors operating drugstores in the Philippines. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of RA 9257, otherwise known as the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003. Section 4(a) of RA 9257 grants twenty percent (20%) discount as privileges for the Senior Citizens. Petitioner contends that said law is unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation of private property. Issue: Whether or not RA 9257 is unconstitutional Held: Petition is dismissed. The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has general welfare for its object. Accordingly, it has been described as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It is the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same. For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.

RULING

The permanent reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to the taking of private property for public use or benefit. This constitutes compensable taking for which petitioners would ordinarily become entitled to a just compensation. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain but the owners loss. The word just is used to intensify the meaning of the word compensation, a n d t o convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. A tax deduction does not offer full reimbursement of the senior citizen discount. As such, it would not meet the definition of just compensation. Having said that, this raises the question of whether the State, in promoting the health and welfare of a special group of citizens, can impose upon private establishments the burden of partly subsidizing a government program

Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC FACTS: Imelda, a little over 8 years old, in or about 1938, established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte where she studied and graduated high school in the Holy Infant Academy from 1938 to 1949. She then pursued her college degree, education, in St. Pauls College now Divine Word University also in Tacloban. Subsequently, she taught in Leyte Chinese School still in Tacloban. She went to manila during 1952 to work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Romualdez in his office in the House of Representatives. In 1954, she married late President Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a Congressman of Ilocos Norte and was registered there as a voter. When Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959, they lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965, when Marcos won presidency, they lived in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel Manila. She served as member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor of Metro Manila during 1978. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte for the 1995 Elections. Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Representative of the First District of Leyte and also a candidate for the same position, filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification" with the Commission on Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. The petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months under residency, which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 29, 1995 and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. She arrived at the seven months residency due to the fact that she became a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa in said months. ISSUE: Whether petitioner has satisfied the 1year residency requirement to be eligible in running as representative of the First District of Leyte. HELD: Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election purposes. The court are in favor of a conclusion supporting petitoners claim of legal residence or domicile in the First District of Leyte despite her own declaration of 7 months residency in the district for the following reasons: 1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became Imeldas domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought them to Leyte; 2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. In the absence and concurrence of all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to continue. 3. A wife does not automatically gain the husbands domicile because the term residence in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law. When Imelda married late President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium. 4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired right to choose a new one only after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon returning to the country clearly indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living in her brothers house, an act, which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even kept close ties by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important milestones. WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte.

CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and TECLA PADUA, respondents. CRUZ, J.: The question is sometimes asked, in serious inquiry or in curious conjecture, whether we are a court of law or a court of justice. Do we apply the law even if it is unjust or do we administer justice even against the law? Thus queried, we do not equivocate. The answer is that we do neither because we are a court both of law and of justice. We apply the law withjustice for that is our mission and purpose in the scheme of our Republic. This case is an illustration. Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of land registered in 'the name of their deceased parents under OCT No. 10977 of the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac. 1 On March 15, 1963, one of them, Celestino Padua, transferred his undivided share of the herein petitioners for the 2 sum of P550.00 by way of absolute sale. One year later, on April 22, 1964, Eustaquia Padua, his sister, sold her own share to the same vendees, in an instrument denominated "Con Pacto de Retro Sale," for the sum of P 440.00.

By virtue of such agreements, the petitioners occupied, after the said sales, an area corresponding to two-fifths of the said lot, representing the portions sold to them. The vendees subsequently enclosed the same with a fence. In 1975, with their consent, their son Eduardo Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house on a part of the enclosed 4 area. On February 25, 1976, Mariano Padua, one of the five coheirs, sought to redeem the area sold to the spouses 5 Alonzo, but his complaint was dismissed when it appeared that he was an American citizen . On May 27, 1977, however, Tecla Padua, another co-heir, filed her own complaint invoking the same right of redemption claimed by her 6 brother. The trial court * also dismiss this complaint, now on the ground that the right had lapsed, not having been exercised within thirty days from notice of the sales in 1963 and 1964. Although there was no written notice, it was held 7 that actualknowledge of the sales by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law. In truth, such actual notice as acquired by the co-heirs cannot be plausibly denied. The other co-heirs, including Tecla Padua, lived on the same lot, which consisted of only 604 square meters, including the portions sold to the petitioners 8 . Eustaquia herself, who had sold her portion, was staying in the same house with her sister Tecla, who later claimed 9 redemption petition. Moreover, the petitioners and the private respondents were close friends and neighbors whose children went to school together. 10 It is highly improbable that the other co-heirs were unaware of the sales and that they thought, as they alleged, that the area occupied by the petitioners had merely been mortgaged by Celestino and Eustaquia. In the circumstances just narrated, it was impossible for Tecla not to know that the area occupied by the petitioners had been purchased by them from the other. co-heirs. Especially significant was the erection thereon of the permanent semi-concrete structure by the petitioners' son, which was done without objection on her part or of any of the other co-heirs. The only real question in this case, therefore, is the correct interpretation and application of the pertinent law as invoked, interestingly enough, by both the petitioners and the private respondents. This is Article 1088 of the Civil Code, providing as follows: Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. In reversing the trial court, the respondent court ** declared that the notice required by the said article was written notice and that actual notice would not suffice as a substitute. Citing the same case of De Conejero v. Court of Appeals 11applied by the trial court, the respondent court held that that decision, interpreting a like rule in Article 1623, stressed the need for written notice although no particular form was required.

Thus, according to Justice J.B.L. Reyes, who was the ponente of the Court, furnishing the co-heirs with a copy of the deed of sale of the property subject to redemption would satisfy the requirement for written notice. "So long, therefore, as the latter (i.e., the redemptioner) is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof," he declared, "the thirty days for redemption start running. " In the earlier decision of Butte v. UY, 12 " the Court, speaking through the same learned jurist, emphasized that the written notice should be given by the vendor and not the vendees, conformably to a similar requirement under Article 1623, reading as follows: Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendors, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners. The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of the adjoining owners. As "it is thus apparent that the Philippine legislature in Article 1623 deliberately selected a particular method of giving notice, and that notice must be deemed exclusive," the Court held that notice given by the vendees and not the vendorwould not toll the running of the 30-day period. The petition before us appears to be an illustration of the Holmes dictum that "hard cases make bad laws" as the petitioners obviously cannot argue against the fact that there was really no written notice given by the vendors to their co-heirs. Strictly applied and interpreted, Article 1088 can lead to only one conclusion, to wit, that in view of such deficiency, the 30 day period for redemption had not begun to run, much less expired in 1977. But as has also been aptly observed, we test a law by its results; and likewise, we may add, by its purposes. It is a cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning of the law, the first concern of the judge should be to discover in its provisions the in tent of the lawmaker. Unquestionably, the law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never within the legislative intent. An indispensable part of that intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the legislature, is to render justice. Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but in consonance with justice. Law and justice are inseparable, and we must keep them so. To be sure, there are some laws that, while generally valid, may seem arbitrary when applied in a particular case because of its peculiar circumstances. In such a situation, we are not bound, because only of our nature and functions, to apply them just the same, in slavish obedience to their language. What we do instead is find a balance between the word and the will, that justice may be done even as the law is obeyed. As judges, we are not automatons. We do not and must not unfeelingly apply the law as it is worded, yielding like robots to the literal command without regard to its cause and consequence. "Courts are apt to err by sticking too closely to the words of a law," so we are warned, by Justice Holmes again, "where these words import a policy that goes beyond them."13 While we admittedly may not legislate, we nevertheless have the power to interpret the law in such a way as to reflect the will of the legislature. While we may not read into the law a purpose that is not there, we nevertheless have the right to read out of it the reason for its enactment. In doing so, we defer not to "the letter that killeth" but to "the spirit that vivifieth," to give effect to the law maker's will. The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute determines its construction, hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit or intent. For what is within the spirit is within the letter but although it is not within the letter thereof, and that which is within the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute. Stated differently, a thing which is within the intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless within the intent of the lawmakers. 14 In requiring written notice, Article 1088 seeks to ensure that the redemptioner is properly notified of the sale and to indicate the date of such notice as the starting time of the 30-day period of redemption. Considering the shortness of the period, it is really necessary, as a general rule, to pinpoint the precise date it is supposed to begin, to obviate any problem of alleged delays, sometimes consisting of only a day or two.

The instant case presents no such problem because the right of redemption was invoked not days but years after the sales were made in 1963 and 1964. The complaint was filed by Tecla Padua in 1977, thirteen years after the first sale and fourteen years after the second sale. The delay invoked by the petitioners extends to more than a decade, assuming of course that there was a valid notice that tolled the running of the period of redemption. Was there a valid notice? Granting that the law requires the notice to be written, would such notice be necessary in this case? Assuming there was a valid notice although it was not in writing. would there be any question that the 30day period for redemption had expired long before the complaint was filed in 1977? In the face of the established facts, we cannot accept the private respondents' pretense that they were unaware of the sales made by their brother and sister in 1963 and 1964. By requiring written proof of such notice, we would be closing our eyes to the obvious truth in favor of their palpably false claim of ignorance, thus exalting the letter of the law over its purpose. The purpose is clear enough: to make sure that the redemptioners are duly notified. We are satisfied that in this case the other brothers and sisters were actually informed, although not in writing, of the sales made in 1963 and 1964, and that such notice was sufficient. Now, when did the 30-day period of redemption begin? While we do not here declare that this period started from the dates of such sales in 1963 and 1964, we do say that sometime between those years and 1976, when the first complaint for redemption was filed, the other co-heirs were actually informed of the sale and that thereafter the 30-day period started running and ultimately expired. This could have happened any time during the interval of thirteen years, when none of the co-heirs made a move to redeem the properties sold. By 1977, in other words, when Tecla Padua filed her complaint, the right of redemption had already been extinguished because the period for its exercise had already expired. The following doctrine is also worth noting: While the general rule is, that to charge a party with laches in the assertion of an alleged right it is essential that he should have knowledge of the facts upon which he bases his claim, yet if the circumstances were such as should have induced inquiry, and the means of ascertaining the truth were readily available upon inquiry, but the party neglects to make it, he will be chargeable with laches, the same as if he had known the facts. 15 It was the perfectly natural thing for the co-heirs to wonder why the spouses Alonzo, who were not among them, should enclose a portion of the inherited lot and build thereon a house of strong materials. This definitely was not the act of a temporary possessor or a mere mortgagee. This certainly looked like an act of ownership. Yet, given this unseemly situation, none of the co-heirs saw fit to object or at least inquire, to ascertain the facts, which were readily available. It took all of thirteen years before one of them chose to claim the right of redemption, but then it was already too late. We realize that in arriving at our conclusion today, we are deviating from the strict letter of the law, which the respondent court understandably applied pursuant to existing jurisprudence. The said court acted properly as it had no competence to reverse the doctrines laid down by this Court in the above-cited cases. In fact, and this should be clearly stressed, we ourselves are not abandoning the De Conejero and Buttle doctrines. What we are doing simply is adopting an exception to the general rule, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the sales although no notice in writing was given them. And there is no doubt either that the 30-day period began and ended during the 14 years between the sales in question and the filing of the complaint for redemption in 1977, without the co-heirs exercising their right of redemption. These are the justifications for this exception. More than twenty centuries ago, Justinian defined justice "as the constant and perpetual wish to render every one his due."16 That wish continues to motivate this Court when it assesses the facts and the law in every case brought to it for decision. Justice is always an essential ingredient of its decisions. Thus when the facts warrants, we interpret the law in a way that will render justice, presuming that it was the intention of the lawmaker, to begin with, that the law be dispensed with justice. So we have done in this case. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the respondent court

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC. and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. In two (2) cases appealed to it 1 by the private respondent, hereafter simply referred to as ESSO, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered judgment 2 sustaining the decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue excepted to, save "the refund-claim .. in the amount of P39,787.94 as overpaid interest which it ordered refunded to ESSO Reversal of this decision is sought by the Commissioner by a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court. He ascribes to the Tax Court one sole error: "of applying the tax credit for overpayment of the 1959 income tax of .. ESSO, granted by the petitioner (Commissioner), to .. (ESSO's) basic 1960 deficiency income tax liability x x and imposing the 1-1/2% monthly interests 3 only on the remaining balance thereof in the sum of P146,961.00" 4 (instead of the full amount of the 1960 deficiency liability in the amount of P367,994.00). Reversal of the same judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals is also sought by ESSO in its own appeal (docketed as G.R. Nos. L28508-09); but in the brief filed by it in this case, it indicates that it will not press its appeal in the event that "the instant petition for review be denied and that judgment be rendered affirming the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals." The facts are simple enough and are quite quickly recounted. ESSO overpaid its 1959 income tax by P221,033.00. It was accordingly granted a tax credit in this amount by the Comissioner on August 5,1964. However, ESSOs payment of its income tax for 1960 was found to be short by P367,994.00. So, on July 10, 1964, the Commissioner wrote to ESSO demanding payment of the deficiency tax, together with interest thereon for the period from April 18,1961 to April 18,1964. On August 10, 1964, ESSO paid under protest the amount alleged to be due, including the interest as reckoned by the Commissioner. It protested the computation of interest, contending it was more than that properly due. It claimed that it should not have been required to pay interest on the total amount of the deficiency tax, P367,994.00, but only on the amount of P146,961.00representing the difference between said deficiency, P367,994.00, and ESSOs earlier overpayment of P221,033.00 (for which it had been granted a tax credit). ESSO thus asked for a refund. The Internal Revenue Commissioner denied the claim for refund. ESSO appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. As aforestated. that Court ordered payment to ESSO of its "refund-claim x x in the amount of P39,787.94 as overpaid interest. Hence, this appeal by the Commissioner. The CTA justified its award of the refund as follows: ... In the letter of August 5, 1964, .. (the Commissioner) admitted that .. ESSO had overpaid its 1959 income tax by P221,033.00. Accordingly .. (the Commissioner) granted to .. ESSO a tax credit of P221,033.00. In short, the said sum of P221,033.00 of ESSO's money was in the Government's hands at the latest on July 15, 1960 when it ESSO paid in full its second installment of income tax for 1959. On July 10, 1964 .. (the Commissioner) claimed that for 1960, .. ESSO underpaid its income tax by P367,994.00. However, instead of deducting from P367,994.00 the tax credit of P221,033.00 which .. (the Commissioner) had already admitted was due .. ESSO .. (the Commissioner) still insists in collecting the interest on the full amount of P367,994.00 for the period April 18, 1961 to April 18,1964 when the Government had already in its hands the sum of P221,033.00 of .. ESSOs money even before the latter's income tax for 1960 was due and payable. If the imposition of interest does not amount to a penalty but merely a just compensation to the State for the delay in paying the tax, and for the concomitant use by the taxpayer of funds that rightfully should be in the Government's hand (Castro v. Collector, G.R. No. L-1274, Dec. 28, 1962), the collection of the interest on the full amount of P367,994.00 without deducting first the tax credit of P221,033.00, which has long been in the hands of the Government, becomes erroneous, illegal and arbitrary. .. (ESSO) could hardly be charged of delinquency in paying P221,033.00 out of the deficiency income tax of P367,994.00, for which the State should be compensated by the payment of interest, because the said amount of P221,033.00 was already in the coffers of the Government. Neither could .. ESSO be charged for the concomitant use of funds that rightfully belong to the Government because as early as July 15, 1960, it was the Government that was using .. ESSOs funds of P221,033.00. In the circumstances, we find it unfair and unjust for .. (the Commissioner) to exact the interest on the said sum of P221,033.00 which, after all, was paid to and received by the Government even before the incidence of the deficiency income tax of P367,994.00. (Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. Commissioner, C.T.A. Case No. 1327, Sept. 30,1965). On the contrary, the Government should be the first to blaze the trail and set the example of fairness and honest dealing in the administration of tax laws.

Accordingly, we hold that the tax credit of P221,033.00 for 1959 should first be deducted from the basic deficiency tax of P367,994.00 for 1960 and the resulting difference of P146,961.00 would be subject to the 18% interest prescribed by Section 51 (d) of the Revenue Code. According to the prayer of ..(ESSO) .. (the Commissioner) is hereby ordered to refund to .. (ESSO) the amount of P39,787.94 as overpaid interest in the settlement of its 1960 income tax liability. However, as the collection of the tax was not attended with arbitrariness because .. (ESSO) itself followed x x (the Commissioner's) manner of computing the tax in paying the sum of P213,189.93 on August 10, 1964, the prayer of .. (ESSO) that it be granted the legal rate of interest on its overpayment of P39,787.94 from August 10, 1964 to the time it is actually refunded is denied. (See Collector of Internal Revenue v. Binalbagan Estate, Inc., G.R. No. 1,12752, Jan. 30, 1965). The Commissioner's position is that income taxes are determined and paid on an annual basis, and that such determination and payment of annual taxes are separate and independent transactions; and that a tax credit could not be so considered until it has been finally approved and the taxpayer duly notified thereof. Since in this case, he argues, the tax credit of P221,033.00 was approved only on August 5, 1964, it could not be availed of in reduction of ESSOs earlier tax deficiency for the year 1960; as of that year, 1960, there was as yet no tax credit to speak of, which would reduce the deficiency tax liability for 1960. In support of his position, the Commissioner invokes the provisions of Section 51 of the Tax Code pertinently reading as follows: (c) Definition of deficiency. As used in this Chapter in respect of tax imposed by this Title, the term 'deficiency' means: (1) The amount by which the tax imposed by this Title exceeds the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return; but the amount so shown on the return shall first be increased by the amounts previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as a deficiency, and decreased by the amount previously abated credited, returned, or otherwise in respect of such tax; .. xxx xxx xxx (d) Interest on deficiency. Interest upon the amount determined as deficiency shall be assessed at the same time as the deficiency and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and shall be collected as a part of the tax, at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date prescribed for the payment of the tax (or, if the tax is paid in installments, from the date prescribed for the payment of the first installment) to the date the deficiency is assessed; Provided, That the amount that may be collected as interest on deficiency shall in no case exceed the amount corresponding to a period of three years, the present provision regarding prescription to the contrary notwithstanding. The fact is that, as respondent Court of Tax Appeals has stressed, as early as July 15, 1960, the Government already had in its hands the sum of P221,033.00 representing excess payment. Having been paid and received by mistake, as petitioner Commissioner subsequently acknowledged, that sum unquestionably belonged to ESSO, and the Government had the obligation to return it to ESSO That acknowledgment of the erroneous payment came some four (4) years afterwards in nowise negates or detracts from its actuality. The obligation to return money mistakenly paid arises from the moment that payment is made, and not from the time that the payee admits the obligation to reimburse. The obligation of the payee to reimburse an amount paid to him results from the mistake, not from the payee's confession of the mistake or recognition of the obligation to reimburse. In other words, since the amount of P221,033.00 belonging to ESSO was already in the hands of the Government as of July, 1960, although the latter had no right whatever to the amount and indeed was bound to return it to ESSO, it was neither legally nor logically possible for ESSO thereafter to be considered a debtor of the Government in that amount of P221,033.00; and whatever other obligation ESSO might subsequently incur in favor of the Government would have to be reduced by that sum, in respect of which no interest could be charged. To interpret the words of the statute in such a manner as to subvert these truisms simply can not and should not be countenanced. "Nothing is better settled than that courts are not to give words a meaning which would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences. That is a principle that goes back to In re Allen (2 Phil. 630) decided on October 29, 1903, where it was held that a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results." 6 "Statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or absurd conclusion." 7 WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED, and the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated October 28, 1967 subject of the petition is AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to costs.