Concept of Law

- As defined by Sanchez Roman it is a rule of conduct, just, obligatory

promulgated by legitimate authority and of common observance and benefit

Concept of Civil Law

- It is defined as the mass of precepts which determines and regulates the relations of assistance
authority, and obedience among existing members of a family as well as among members of a society
for the
protection of private interests

Concept of civil code

- it is defined as collection of laws determining the private relations of members of civil society
respective rights and obligations, with reference to persons,things, and civil acts

Article 1
This Act Shall be known as the civil code of the Philippines

Article 2
Law shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication
in the official gazette, unless otherwise stated provided. This code shall take effect 1 year after
such publication

Pesigan v. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174

At issue in this case is the enforceability, before publication in the Official Gazette of June 14, 1982, of
Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A dated October 25, 1980, providing for the confiscation
and forfeiture by the government of carabaos transported from one province to another.

Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu

ten-wheeler truck in the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from
Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas, as the destination.

The Pesigans filed against Zenarosa and Doctor Miranda an action for replevin for the recovery of the carabaos
allegedly valued at P70,000 and damages of P92,000. The replevin order could not be executed by the sheriff. In
his order of April 25, 1983 Judge Domingo Medina Angeles, who heard the case at Daet and who was later
transferred to Caloocan City, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action.

TANADA VS. TUVERA 146 S 446

A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the
government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.

Sine Qua Non- Without which it could not be

Facts:
Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked due process in demanding the disclosure
of a number of Presidential Decrees which they claimed had not been published
as required by Law. The government argued that while publication was necessary
as a rule, it was not so when it was otherwise provided, as when the decrees
themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon approval. The
court decided on April 24, 1985 in affirming the necessity for publication of some of the
decrees. The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official gazette all
unpublished Presidential Issuances which are of general force and effect. The
petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general
applicability and those which are not. The publication means complete publication, and that
publication must be made in the official gazette. In a comment required by the solicitor
general, he claimed first that the motion was a request for an advisory opinion and therefore
be dismissed. And on the clause “unless otherwise provided” in Article 2 of the new
civil code meant that the publication required therein was not always imperative,
that the publication when necessary, did not have to be made in the official
gazette.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not all laws shall be published in the official gazette.

(2) Whether or not publication in the official gazette must be in full.

Held:

(1) The court held that all statute including those of local application shall be published as
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different
effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

(2) The publication must be full or no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the
public of the content of the laws.

People v. Veridiano 11, 132 SCRA 523

Before he could be arraigned respondent Go Bio, Jr. filed a Motion to Quash the information on the
ground that the information did not charge an offense, pointing out that at the alleged commission of
the offense, which was about the second week of May 1979, Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 has not yet
taken effect.

The prosecution opposed the motion contending, among others, that the date of the dishonor of the check, which is on September 26,
1979, is the date of the commission of the offense; and that assuming that the effectivity of the law — Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 — is
on June 29, 1979, considering that the offense was committed on September 26, 1979, the said law is applicable.

In his reply, private respondent Go Bio, Jr. submits that what Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 penalizes is not the fact of the dishonor of
the check but the act of making or drawing and issuing a check without sufficient funds or credit.

Resolving the motion, respondent judge granted the same and cancelled the bail bond of the accused. In its order of August 23, 1982,
respondent judge said: têñ.£îhqwâ£

The Court finds merit to the contention that the accused cannot be held liable for bouncing checks prior to the
effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 although the check may have matured after the effectivity of the said law.
No less than the Minister of Justice decreed that the date of the drawing or making and issuance of the bouncing
check is the date to reckon with and not on the date of the maturity of the check. (Resolution No. 67, S. 1981,
People's Car vs. Eduardo N. Tan, Feb. 3, 1981; Resolution No. 192, S. 1981, Ricardo de Guia vs. Agapito Miranda,
March 20, 1981).
 Hence, the Court believes that although the accused can be prosecuted for swindling (Estafa, Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code), the Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 cannot be given a retroactive effect to apply to the above
entitled case. (pp. 49- 50, Rollo)

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner submitting for review respondent judge's dismissal of the criminal action against
private respondent Go Bio, Jr. for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.

t is therefore, certain that the penal statute in question was made public only on June 14, 1979 and not on the printed date April 9,
1979. Differently stated, June 14, 1979 was the date of publication of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Before the public may be bound by
its contents especially its penal provisions, the law must be published and the people officially informed of its contents and/or its
penalties. For, 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
and, consequently, the accused could not have committed the alleged crime.

Marcelo v. PCIB, 607 SCRA 778

Petition for certiorari. A petition that asks an appellate court to grant a writ of certiorari. This type
of petition usually argues that a lower court has incorrectly decided an important question of law, and that
the mistake should be fixed to prevent confusion in similar cases.

Article 3
Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith

Article Iv
Nunga, Jr. v. Nunga 111, 574 SCRA 760

While it is true that a law creating new rights may be given retroactive effect, the same can only be made possible if the
new right does not prejudice or impair any vested right.43