1. G.R. No.

L-63915 December 29, 1986

LORENZO M. TAÑ;ADA, et. al., petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to force public officials to publish various
Presidential Decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders,
letters of implementation, and administrative orders in the Official Gazette. The government
argues that publication is necessary as a rule, but the Supreme Court affirmed this in 1985.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which
are not as to their publication;
2. Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general circulation.

HELD:
YES. The Supreme Court ruled that all presidential decrees and executive orders, unless they
are directly conferred by the Constitution or delegated by the legislature, must be published
as a condition for their effectivity. This is in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code, which
states that laws take effect after fifteen days after their completion in the Official Gazette.
Interpretative regulations and internal regulations do not need to be published.

2. BASA, ET AL., vs. MERCADO 61 Phil 632

FACTS:
The last will and testament of Ines Basa was approved by Judge Hermogenes Reyes in 1932.
The estate administrator was declared the only heir and administration proceedings closed. In
1934, petitioners-appellants filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, claiming the court
lacked jurisdiction due to failure to comply with the notice of hearing requirements. 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:
The court ruled that the Code of Civil Procedure does not require the notice to be published
three weeks before the will hearing, as Ing Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation,
with a subscription list, regular publication, and the trial court's order to publish it. The law
does not require the largest newspaper to be a newspaper of general circulation.

3. G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992

PASEI, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, et. al., respondents.
Facts:
DOLE Dept. Order No. 16 temporarily suspends the recruitment by private employment
agencies of Filipino DH going to Hong Kong in view of the need to establish mechanisms that
will enhance the protection for the same.
The DOLE, through POEA took over the business of deploying such HK-bound workers.
Pursuant to the above order, POEA issued memorandum circular no. 30 providing guidelines
on the government processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to HK and the
accreditation of HK recruitment agencies intending to hire Filipino domestic helpers, and the
memorandum circular No. 30, pertaining to the processing of employment contracts of
domestic workers for HK.

Petitioner contends that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of
their rule-making authority in issuing said circulars.
Issue:
WON the take-over of the business deploying DH to HK by DOLE and POEA through an
administrative order and circular is valid.
Held:
Yes. Article 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict and
regulate recruitment and placement activities. The challenge administrative issuance
discloses that the same fall within the administrative and police powers expressly or by
necessary implication conferred upon the respondents.

4. Republic v. Extelcom G.R. 147096, January 15, 2002

FACTS:
Bayantel applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity (CPCN) to install,
operate, and maintain a digital Cellular Mobile Telephone System/Service (CMTS). The NTC
directed interested applicants to file their applications. Bayantel filed an amended application,
which was heard and approved. However, the NTC granted two separate Provisional
Authority, closing out available frequencies. The NTC issued a Memorandum re-allocating five
megahertz of radio frequency spectrum for CMTS network expansion. Bayantel filed an Ex-
Parte Motion to Revive Case, which was granted. Extelcom filed an Opposition, which was
denied due to lack of merit. The NTC filed the current petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the 1993 Revised Rules of the NTC is operative and should be applied to the
Respondent even with the absence of Publication Requirement.

HELD:
No, publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the
public of the contents of the laws. The Administrative Order under consideration must be
published for its effectivity, as it enforces and implements existing laws. Publication in the
Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition for statutes, rules, or
regulations to take effect. The Rules of Practice and Procedure of the NTC fall within these
laws, except for interpretative regulations or letters of instructions. The 1993 Revised Rules
must be published in a newspaper before taking effect, and the 1978 Rules govern in the
absence of such publication.

5. G.R. No. 180705 November 27, 2012

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
In 1971, Republic Act No. 6260 established the Coconut Investment Company (CIC) to
administer the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF), sourced from a PhP 0.55 levy on copra sales.
The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) was charged with collecting and administering the
fund, and decrees were issued to improve the coconut industry. In 1975, the PCA purchased
72.2% of the authorized capital stock of the FUB, later renamed the UCPB, using public
funds. The remaining 27.8% shares were not covered by the two agreements, and the PCA
claims the UCPB shares have become private properties of 1,405,366 coconut farmers. The
Sandiganbayan issued a PSJ-A in favor of the Republic, declaring the transfer of FUB/UCPB
shares to Cojuangco null and void.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the agreement between PCA and Cojuangco can be accorded the status of a
law without publication.

HELD:
NO. The case revolves around Pedro Cojuangco's claim of ownership over UCPB shares,
based on two contract documents. The PC-ECJ Agreement, entered into in May 1975,
contained Cojuangco's exclusive option to acquire FUB shares. Section 1 of P.D. No. 755
incorporated the PCA-Cojuangco Agreement, which stated the state's policy to provide credit
facilities to coconut farmers at preferential rates. However, the PCA-Cojuangco Agreement
was not reproduced or attached to the same law. Publication is an indispensable condition for
the effectivity of a law, and in this case, the PCA-Cojuangco Agreement cannot be considered
a law. The case is ruled to be treated as an ordinary transaction between agreeing minds,
governed by contract law under the Civil Code.

6. Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. vs. Department of National Defense

(DND)
G.R. NO. 187587, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 359

FACTS:
In 1957, President Garcia reserved land in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Province of Rizal, and
Pasay City for military purposes. In 1967, Marcos amended Proclamation No. 423, excluding
Fort Bonifacio for a national shrine. In 1987, Aquino reiterated Proclamation No. 2476 but
excluded lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan from operation. In 1999, Nagkakaisang Maralita ng
Sitio Masigasig, Inc. filed a petition with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems
(COSLAP) seeking reliefs for the occupied areas. COSLAP granted the petition and declared
portions of land alienable and disposable. MSS-PVAO then filed a petition with the Court of
Appeals, which granted the petition, with both parties appealing the decision.

ISSUE:
whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the subject lots were not alienable and
disposable by virtue of Proclamation No. 2476 on the ground that the handwritten addendum
of President Marcos was not included in the publication of the said law.

HELD:
No. The handwritten addendum has no legal force and effect due to lack of the required
publication in the Official Gazette. Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all for the
purpose that it should inform the public of the contents of the law. Pursuant to Article 2 of the
Civil Code, the requirement of publication is indispensable in the effectivity of a law unless
otherwise provided by the law itself.

7. De Roy vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988

Facts:
The petitioners owned a firewall that had weakened and collapsed on the tailoring shop
owned by the private respondents, causing injuries and death to Marissa Bernal, a daughter.
The RTC ruled that the petitioners were guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages to
respondents. The petitioners appealed to the CA, but the latter affirmed the decision of the
RTC. A copy of the decision of the CA was received by the petitioners on August 25, 1987. On
September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day period to file an appeal, the petitioners
asked the CA to extend the time to file a motion for reconsideration. According to a previous
case, Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a
motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. The petitioners contend that the case of
Habaluyas could not be made binding because it has not been published in the Official
Gazette at the time the CA promulgated its decision.

Issue:
Is the ruling on an unpublished case binding?

Ruling:
Yes. There is no law requiring the publication of a Supreme Court decision for it to be binding
and effective. The counsel of the petitioners should be responsible for keeping abreast with
Supreme Court decisions as a lawyer.
8. IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS vs. ISAGANI D. BOBIS G.R. No. 138509 July 31, 2000

FACTS:
The respondent married Maria Dulce Javier in 1985, which was not judicially declared
nullified. He married the petitioner in 1996, and a third marriage was alleged. In 1998, the
petitioner filed a criminal case against the respondent. The respondent initiated a civil action
for the judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage, arguing it was celebrated without a
marriage license and he was unaware of the requirement. The Regional Trial Court
suspended the criminal case until the civil case's decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent can invoke his ignorance of the requirement under Article 40
of the Family Code.
Held:
No, the respondent cannot invoke his ignorance of the requirement for the judicial declaration
of nullity of marriage before contracting a new marriage.
Article 3 of the Civil Code states that, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith. Thus, the respondent is presumed to have a conclusive knowledge of the requisites
of a valid marriage since the Family Code is already in effect and force during the celebration
of his second marriage with the petitioner.
Hence, the decision of the RTC in suspending the criminal case pending the civil case was
reversed because it is wrong to invoke ignorance of a law which is already in effect and force
like the Family Code.

9. ERNESTINA BERNABE v. CAROLINA ALEJO G.R. No. 140500 January 21, 2002

FACTS:
The late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe had a son, Adrian Bernabe, with his secretary Carolina
Alejo. After Bernabe's death in 1993, his wife Rosalina left Ernestina as the sole surviving
heir. In 1994, Carolina filed a complaint to declare Adrian an acknowledged illegitimate son of
Bernabe, claiming he should receive his share in Bernabe's estate. The Regional Trial Court
dismissed the complaint, but the trial court granted Bernabe's motion for reconsideration and
dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals ruled that Adrian should be allowed to prove
his illegitimacy, as his rights are governed by Article 285 of the Civil Code.

ISSUES:
1. Wehter Family Code should be applied retroactively and whether Adrian Bernabe, an
illegitimate son, has a right to be recognized.

HELD:
NO. The petitioner argues that the Family Code should be retroactively applied to Adrian, who
was barred from filing an action for recognition due to the replacement of Article 285 of the
Civil Code. The Court finds that Article 285 of the Civil Code is a substantive law, allowing
Adrian to file his petition within four years of attaining majority age. The Family Code cannot
impair or take Adrian's right to file an action for recognition, as it had already vested.
10. G.R. No. 125932 April 21, 1999
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners
vs.
CLAUDE A. MILLER and JUMRUS S. MILLER, respondents.

FACTS:
On July 29, 1988, Spouses Miller, both American citizens, filed with the RTC of Angeles City a
verified petition to adopt Michael Magno Madayag, a Filipino child, under the provision of the
Child and Youth Welfare Code which allows aliens to adopt. The natural parents
executed affidavits giving their irrevocable consent to the adoption and the DSWD
recommended approval of the petition on the basis of its evaluation. The trial court rendered
decision granting the petition for adoption. On August 3, 1998, the Family Code became
effective, prohibiting the adoption of a Filipino child by aliens. The Solicitor General, in behalf
of the Republic, appealed to the granting of the petition for adoption.

ISSUE:
Whether aliensbe allowed to adopt a Filipino child when the petition for adoption was filed
prior to the effectivity of the Family Code prohibiting the same.

HELD:
Yes. The Court has ruled that aliens qualified to adopt under the Child and Youth Welfare
Code have a vested right to adopt a Filipino child, which cannot be affected by a new law
disqualifying them. The Family Code, effective August 3, 1988, will not impair this right, as it is
governed by the law at the time of filing the adoption petition.