STATUTORY

CONSTRUCTION
Introduction
What is statutory construction?
 Art or process of discovering and expounding the
meaning and intention of the authors of the law with
respect to its application to a given case, where
that intention is rendered doubtful, among others,
by reason of the fact that the given case is not
explicitly provided for in the law

 Caltex Phils, Inc. vs. Palomar (18 SCRA 247)

Construction vs. interpretation
 Interpretation is the art of finding the true meaning and sense
of any form of words while construction is the process of
drawing warranted conclusions not always included in the
direct expressions, or determining the application of words to
facts in litigation.
 Interpretation makes use of intrinsic aids or those found in the
statute itself while construction makes use of extrinsic aids or
those found outside the written language of the statute
 In practice, they are understood as having the same
signification and purpose
When is it necessary to interpret
and construct?
 When the language of the statute is ambiguous,
doubtful or obscure, when taken in relation to set of
facts
 When reasonable minds disagree as to the
meaning of the language used in the statute
When is it not necessary to
interpret and construct?
 When the law speaks in clear and categorical
language. The duty of the court, in such a case is to
APPLY THE LAW NOT TO INTERPRET IT

Case: Cynthia S. Bolos vs. Danilo Bolos

(Declaration of Nullity)
Amibiguity
 Doubtfulness, doubleness of meaning, indistinctness or
uncertainty of meaning of an expression used in a written
instrument.
 Ambiguity does not only arise from the meaning of the
particular words but also from the general scope and meaning
of the statute when all the provisions are examined
 When a literal interpretation of the words would lead to
unreasonable, unjust or absurd consequences or where a
statute is in conflict with the Constitution, or where the statute
would defeat the policy of the legislation.
Rules of Construction
 Tools to ascertain legislative intent, not rules of law
but axioms of experience
 Helps the court to ascertain the true intent and
meaning of the ambiguous language of the statute
 Legislature sometimes adopt the rules of statutory
construction as part of the provisions of the statute
Where legislative intent is ascertained

 The statute itself

 If the statute as a whole fails to indicate the
legislative intent, the court may look beyond the
statute, such as legislative history in order to
ascertain what was in the legislative mind at the
time the statute was enacted, the circumstances
when the action was taken, what evil was meant to
be redressed.
Statutes (subject of construction)
 Include statutes, executive orders, department
circulars, ordinances, constitution
Structure of Government affecting
interpretation
 Legislative Power – authority of Congress to make
laws and to alteror repeal them
 Case: Municipality of San Juan vs. CA (Validity of Proc.
No. 164)
 Judicial Power – authority to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving rights that are
enforceable and demandable before the court of
justice or the redress of wrongs for the violation of
such rights,
 - includes duty of the courts of justice to
determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on any part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government
Cases:
 Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission,Lagman et al vs.
Ochoa et al (Philippine Truth Commission)
 Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, et. al.
 Executive Power – shall be vested in the President
of the Philippines
- It is the power to enforce and administer the
laws
Check and Balance:
 Laws emanate from Legislature –
 Presidentmay veto
 Courts may determine validity (with requisites)

 Executive Department may modify or set aside the

judgement of the court (eg. Pardon)
 Legislative Department may amend of revoke the
decisions of the court (by enacting or amending a
law)
Authority of construction and
interpretation
 Judicial Department
 Supreme Court
 Lower Courts:
 Court of Appeals
 Regional Trial Court
 Municipal Trial Court in Cities
 Municipal Trial Court
 Municipal Circuit Trial Court
Judicial Rulings
 Rulings of SC part of legal system
 Judicial Rulings have no retroactive effect
 Only SC en banc can modify or abandon principle
of law, and not any division of the Court
 Court may issue guidelines in construing statute
Requisites for construction
 Actual case or controversy

 There is ambiguity in the law involved

Where the law speaks in clear and categorical

language, there is no room for interpretation, only
for application.
Limitations on the power to Construe

 May not enlarge or restrict statutes

 Courts may not be influenced by questions of
wisdom or sympathy
Director of Lands vs. CA
GR No. 102858, July 28, 1997

 Facts:
 Teodoro Abisado filed petition for original registration to his
title over a parcel of land under PD 1529. This was
assigned to an RTC in Mindoro. During the pendency of the
application, applicant died. Hence, the heirs rep. by Josefa
Abistado their Aunt were substituted as applicants. The RTC
dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction.
 Records show that applicants failed to comply with the
provisions of Sec. 23 of PD 1529 on publication of the
notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation. This was published only in the Official Gazette.
  CA reversed the decision of the RTC ruling that
publication in the newspaper of general circulation was
merely procedural and that failure to do so did not
deprive the RTC of authority to grant the application.
Hence, this appeal by certiorari.
 ISSUE:
 Whether or not the land registration court can validly
confirm and register the title of the applicants in the
absence of publication in the newspaper of general
circulation as required under Sec. 23 of PD 1529
Provision of Law in Question:
 Section 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. The court shall,
within five days from filing of the application, issue an order setting
the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier
than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the
order.
 The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the
application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2)
mailing; and (3) posting.
 1. By publication.
 Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial
hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause notice
of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and
once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines:
Provided, however, that the publication in the Official Gazette shall
be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall be
addressed x x x x x
 Decision:
 The Supreme Court said No. This is impelled by the
demands of statutory construction and the due process
rationale behind the publication requirement.
 The term used is “shall” which denotes an imperative and
thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute.
 Since there was a failure to comply, with the publication
requirement, the application must be dismissed without
prejudice to reapplication in the future after the legal
requisites have been complied with.
Pascual et.al. vs. Pascual Bautista et.al.
GR No. 84840, March 25, 1992

 Facts:
 Don Andres Pascual died intestate without any children and
was survived by a) Surviving spouse Adela, b) 6 children of
his full brother Wenceslao, c) 7 children of full brother
Pedro, d) acknowledged and natural children of full blood
brother Eligio (petitioners) and e) representative of the
intestate of Eleuterio, half blood brother.
 Petitioners Motion and Motion for Reconsideration
manifesting their hereditary rights in the estate of Don
Andres was denied by RTC and dismissed by CA. Hence,
this petition
 Issue:
 Whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code can be
interpreted to exclude recognized natural children from
the inheritance of the deceased
 Provision of Law involved:
 Article 992 of the Civil Code:
 An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of
his father or mother; nor shall such children or
relatives inherit in the same manner from the
illegitimate child.(943a)
 Petitioners contended that the word “illegitimate”
should not cover acknowledged natural children
because their illegitimacy is not due to the
subsistence of a prior marriage when such children
were conceived. This term should only cover the
spurious children
 Decision:
 Supreme Court held that Article 992 does not exclude
recognized natural children from the inheritance of the
deceased.
 Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are his
illegitimate children. They cannot represent their father in
the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the
decedent Andres Pascual, full blood brother of their father.
 Although the interpretation desired by petitioner is more
humane, the courts may not speculate on the intent of the
legislature apart from the words of the law which is clear.
Pp vs. Mario Mapa y Mapulong
GR No. L-22301, August 30, 1967

 Facts:
 Defendant Mapa ws charged and convicted of the
crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition
by the CFI Manila. His sole defense is that he is the
duly appointed secret agent of the then Governor of
Batangas and at the time of the commission of the
offense, he had a confidential missin to Manila, Pasay
and Quezon Cities.
 ISSUE:
 Whether or not the appointment to and holding the
position as a secret agent of the governor would
constitute a sufficient defense for the prosecution of the
crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition?
 The Law is explicit:
 “it shall be unlawful for any person to possess any firerm,
detached parts of firearms or ammunition”
 “firearms and ammunitions regularly and lawfully issued to
officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the
employment of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police,
provincial governors, lieutenant governors, provincial
treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal mayors, and
guards of provincial prisoners and jails” are not covered
“when such firearms are in possession of such officials and
public servants for use in the performance of their official
duties.”
 Decision:
 Supreme Court held that this is not a valid defense. The
law is clear. No provision is made for a secret agent.
As such, he is not exempt. The first and fundamental
duty of the courts is to apply the law. Construction and
interpretation come only after it has been
demonstrated that application is impossible or
inadequate without them. Conviction of the accused
must stand.
Pp. vs. Patricio Amigo
GR No. 116719, January 18, 1996

 Facts
 Accused Patricio Amigo was charged and convicted of
murder by the RTC Davao City and sentenced to
reclusion perpetua. Accused claims that the penalty is
too cruel and harsh and pleads for sympathy
 Issue: Is sympathy a factor in imposing penalty?
 HELD: Courts are not the forum to plead for
sympathy. The duty of the courts is to apply
disregarding the feeling of sympathy or pity for an
accused. DURA LEX SED LEX.
Twin Ace Holdings Corp. vs. Rufina Co.
G.R. No. 16091, June 8, 2006

 FACTS:
 Twin Ace Holdings is a private domestic corporation engaged in
the manufacture of rhum, wines and liquor under the name and
style “Tanduay Distillers.” It has registered its mark of ownership
over the bottles with Bureau of Patent, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer under R.A. 523. It sells products to the public
excluding the bottles, retrieves, washes and reuses them.
 Rufina is engaged in production, fermentation and manufacture
of patis and other food seasonings, buying and selling of all
kinds of foods and other merchandize for domestic use or for
export. It uses as containers for its patis and food seasonings the
containers bottles owned by Twin Ace without authority.
 RTC issued writ of replevin. Deputy sherrif seized 26T
empty bottles marked Tanduay Distellery Inc. at the
address of Rufina
 Rufina claimed that the bottles were purchased from
junk shops thus, they are the owners
 RTC decided in favor of Rufina by dismissing the
complaint and awarded damages
 CA modified the decision by deleting award of
damages and Atty’s fees.
 ISSUE
 Whether or not Rufina is covered within the exemption provided
by Section 6 of RA 623 as amended by RA 5700?
 Law involved
 Section 2. It shall be unlawful for any person, without the
written consent of the manufacturer, bottler or seller who has
successfully registered the marks of ownership in accordance
with the provisions of the next preceding section, to fill such
bottles, boxes, kegs, barrels, or other similar containers so
marked or stamped, for the purpose of sale, or to sell, dispose
of, buy, or traffic in, or wantonly destroy the same, whether
filled or not, or to use the same for drinking vessels or glasses
or for any other purpose than that registered by the
manufacturer, bottler or seller. Any violation of this section
shall be punished by a fine or not more than one hundred
pesos or imprisonment of not more than thirty days or both.
 Section 3. The use by any person other than the registered
manufacturer, bottler, or seller, without written permission of the latter,
of any such bottle, cask, barrel, keg, box or other similar container, or
the possession thereof by any junk dealer or dealer in casks, barrels,
kegs, boxes, or other similar containers, the same being duly marked or
stamped and registered as herein provided, shall be prima facie
evidence that such use, or possession is unlawful.
Section 4. The criminal action provided in this Act shall is no way
affect any civil action to which the registered manufacturer, bottler, or
seller, may be entitled by law or contract.
Section 5. No action shall be brought under this Act against any
person to whom the registered manufacturer, bottler, or seller, has
transferred by way of sale, any of the containers herein referred to, but
the sale of the beverage contained in the said containers shall not
include the sale of the containers unless specifically so provided.
Section 6. The provision of this Act shall not be interpreted as
prohibiting the use of bottles as containers for "sisi", "bagoong",
"patis", and similar native products.
 Decision:
 Rufina is covered under the exemption under Section 6.
 The exemption contained in Section 6 of RA 623
applies to all manufacturers of sisi, bagoong, patis and
similar native products without distinction or
qualification as to whether they are small, medium or
large scale.
 The law is clear thus there is no room for interpretation