Basa vs Mercado Case Digest

Persons and Family Relations GR No. L- 42226 :

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

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

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

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

94 SCRA 641, March 29, 1954 (Constitutional Law Publication of Bank Circulars and Regulations)

FACTS: Appellant who was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of U.S. dollars, U.S. checks and
U.S. money orders failed to sell the same to the Central Bank through its agents within one day following
the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by Central Bank Circular No. 20. Appellant appeals on
the claim that the said circular had no force or effect because the same was not published in the official
Gazette prior to the act or omission imputed to said appellant. The Solicitor General counters that
Commonwealth Act. No. 638 and 2930 do not require the publication in the Official Gazette of said
circular issued for the implementation of a law in order to have force and effect.

ISSUE: Whether or not circulars and regulations should be published in order to have force and effect.

HELD: Yes, circulars and regulations especially like Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank which prescribes a
penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective. Before the public is bound by its
contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be published and the
people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its penalties.
Lara v Del Rosario G.R. No. L-6339 April 20 1954

Plaintiffs: Manuel Lara, et al

vs

Defendant: Petronilo Del Rosario

Ponente: Montemayor

FACTS:

Mr. Del Rosario owns Waval Taxi w/c employs 3 mechanics and 49 drivers. On Sep 4 1950 all of his 25
taxi Units was sold to La Mallorca. La Mallorca failed to continue all the mechanics and drivers in their
employment. Case was filed (the 3 mechanics later on withdrew from the case unconditionally) with the
trial court and subsequently dismissed on the basis of Art 302 of the code of Commerce citing the
drivers are considered piece workers hence not covered by the Eight-Hour Labor Law. Plaintiffs filed
an appeal to the CA which the latter referred to the SC because the question of law is involved.

ISSUES:

1. W/N Civil Code is applicable.

2. W/N plaintiffs are entitled to mesada & extra compensation for work performed in excess of 8
hours a day, Sundays and Holidays included as per Art. 302 of the Code of Commerce.

RULING:

HELD. The services of the plaintiffs ended September 4 1950 when the new civil code was already in
force, it having become effective August 30 1950 (or one year after it was released for circulation; and
not 1 year after it was published w/c was July 19 1949). The new CC in Art. 2270 repealed the provisions
of the Code of Commerce, one provision of which was Art 302. Hence, the plaintiffs are no longer
entitled to their 1-month severance pay.