Tanada v.

Tuvera

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 ignoratia legis nominem excusat. 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.
FUENTES V. ROCA
MANUEL FUENTES and LETICIA FUENTES -
petitioners
CONRADO ROCA, ANNABELLE JOSON, ROSE
MARIE CRISTOBAL, PILA MALCAMPO -
respondents
ABAD, J.
FACTS:
 Sabina Tarozza owned a lot in
Zamboanga City. She sold it to her son,
Tarciano Roca under a deed of absolute
sale, but Tarciano did not for the
meantime have the registered title
transferred to his name
 Six years later Tarciano offered to sell
the lot to petitioners Manuel and Leticia
Fuentes (the Fuentes spouses)
 They arranged to meet at the office of
Atty. Romulo D. Plagata whom they
asked to prepare the documents of sale.
(signed; to be effective in 6 months)
 The agreement required the Fuentes
spouses to pay Tarciano a down
payment of P60,000.00 for the transfer
of the lot's title to him, and within 6
months Tarciano was to clear the
structures on the lot and secure the
consent of his estranged wife (Rosario
Roca) to the sale.
 If Tarciano is able to comply with these
conditions, the Fuentes spouses will
take possession of the lot and pay him
an additional P140,000.00 or
P160,000.00 (depending on whether or
not he succeeded in demolishing the
house standing on it)
 If Tarciano was unable to comply with
these conditions, the Fuentes spouses
would become owners of the lot
without any further formality and
payment.
 Tarciano was able to comply with the
requirements then he executed a deed
of absolute sale in favor of the Fuentes
spouses
 They then paid him the additional
P140,000.00 mentioned in their
agreement. A new title was issued in
the name of the spouses
 Tarciano passed away, and his wife
Rosario died nine months afterwards
 Eight years later in 1997, the children of
Tarciano and Rosario, (collectively, the
Rocas), filed an action for annulment of
sale and reconveyance of the land
against the Fuentes spouses before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga
City
 The Rocas claimed that the sale to the
spouses was void since Tarciano's wife,
Rosario, did not give her consent to it.
Her signature on the affidavit of consent
had been forged.
 They thus prayed that the property be
reconveyed to them upon
reimbursement of the price that the
Fuentes spouses paid Tarciano.
 RTC dimissed the case and CA reversed
the RTC desicion, saying they found
sufficient evidence of forgery
 Unsatisfied with the CA decision, the
Fuentes spouses came to this court by
petition for review.
ISSUES
 Was Rosario's signature on the
document of consent to the sale of the
conjugal land to the Fuentes spouses
forged?
 Was Rocas' action for the declaration of
nullity of that sale to the spouses
already prescribed?
 Was Rosario, the wife whose consent
was not had, the only one who could
bring the action to annul that sale?
DECISION:
 Yes. The Court agrees with the CA's
observation that Rosario's signature
strokes on the affidavit are different
from her specimen signatures (dark and
forced vs light and more fluid; "R" and
"s" were remarkably different)
 No. It did not yet prescribe.
 No. As stated above, that sale was void
from the beginning. Consequently, the
land remained the property of Tarciano
and Rosario despite that sale. When the
 two died, they passed on the ownership
of the property to their heirs, namely,
the Rocas.[23] As lawful owners, the
Rocas had the right, under Article 429 of
the Civil Code, to exclude any person
from its enjoyment and disposal.
 WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the
petition and AFFIRMS WITH
MODIFICATION the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 00531
dated February 27, 2007 as follows:
o Deed of sale is declared void
o The Register of Deeds of
Zamboanga City is directed to
reinstate Transfer Certificate of
Title 3533 in the name of Tarciano
T. Roca, married to Rosario
Gabriel
o Respondents Gonzalo G. Roca,
Annabelle R. Joson, Rose Marie R.
Cristobal, and Pilar Malcampo are
ordered to pay petitioner spouses
Manuel and Leticia Fuentes the
P200,000.00 that the latter paid
Tarciano T. Roca, with legal
interest
o Respondents Gonzalo G. Roca,
Annabelle R. Joson, Rose Marie R.
Cristobal, and Pilar Malcampo are
further ordered, at their option,
to indemnify petitioner spouses
Manuel and Leticia Fuentes with
their expenses for introducing
useful improvements on the
subject land
o The RTC of Zamboanga City from
which this case originated is
directed to receive evidence and
determine the amount of
indemnity to which the Fuentes
spouses are entitled
Antichresis, under civil law and Roman law, is a contract whereby a debtor pledges (i.e.,
conveys possession of but not title to) real property to a creditor, allowing the use and
occupation of the pledged property, in lieu of interest on the loan.
Lien - a right to keep possession of property belonging to another person until a debt owed
by that person is discharged.
ELEGADO V. COURT OF APPEALS
SIMON V. CHAN
HEIRS OF EDUARDO SIMON, Petitioners,
ELVIN CHAN AND THE COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents
FACTS:
 Simon, employing fraud, deceit, and
misrepresentation, encashed a check
amounting to P336,000 to Chan,
assuring the check is funded and that he
had an existing account with the
Landbank of the Philippines
 However, when check was presented
for payment, it was dishonored on the
ground that the account of Simon with
Land Bank of the Philippines has been
closed
ISSUE:
 Whether or not Chan's civil action to
recover the amount of the unfunded
check was an independent civil action
DECISION:
 No. There is no independent civil action
to recover the value of a bouncing
check issued in contravention of BP 22.
This is clear from the Rules of Court.
 o The criminal action for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed.
o BP 22: AN ACT PENALIZING THE
MAKING OR DRAWING AND
ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT
SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
 This is the case even if Article 20 of the
New Civil Code (Every person who,
contrary to law, wilfully or negligently
causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.)
shows that Civil liability to the offended
party cannot be denied
 The provisions of the Rules of Court,
even if not yet in effect when Chan
commenced his civil Case, are
nonetheless applicable. It is
unquestionable that the retroactive
application of procedural laws does not
violate any right of a person who may
feel adversely affected, nor is it
constitutionally objectionable.
o The reason is simply that, as a
general rule, no vested right may
attach to, or arise from,
procedural laws.
o Any new rules may validly be
made to apply to cases pending at
the
time of their promulgation,
considering that no party to an
action has a vested right in the
rules of procedure
o Exception to the rule; Remedial
Statute; Retroactivity of the law
 Aptness of the dismissal of the civil
action on the ground of litis pendentia
o Refers to a situation where two
actions are pending between the
same parties for the same cause
of action, so that one of them
becomes unnecessary and
vexatious
o (1) same party (2) same rights
asserted (3) any judgment made
in one case would necessarily bar
the other by res judicata