Tanada vs Tuvera A. Justice Escolins Notes a. Petitioners invoke the following in seeking a writ of mandamus i.

Goal of Mandamus: Compel respondent public officials to publish in the Official Gazette a set of several hundred presidential issuances ii. Basis of Mandamus: 1. Sec. 6, Art. IV of the Philippine Constitution right to information on matters of public concern 2. Civil Code Art. II laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette unless noted b. Respondents counter, citing that the petitioners lack conditions in order to be considered aggrieved parties; reasons include: i. Lack of standing in bringing the petition the petitioners do not seem to be affected or prejudiced by the non-publication (often, mandamus cases are related to private individuals/groups) ii. Basis of i: sec. 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Mandamus) c. Petitioners maintain that the subject of the petition is of a public nature, and the goal is to force a public duty d. Citation of Severino vs Governor General (1910) i. Writ of mandamus is granted to a private individual if he/she has a particular interest to be served or a right to be protected ii. Public officers are to apply if public rights are to be served iii. However, if the question is of a public right, and the object is to force a public duty, the private individual becomes the people and that there is no need to show a special interest. Ergo, court decided to apply the rules for a private individual to the public. e. Respondents noted that the publication in the Gazette is not an essential requirement for the effectivity of laws if the law provides their effective date. The issuances in question had such provisions, thus they need not be published, as noted in the final provision in Art. 2 of the Civil Code: unless it is otherwise provided. f. Court ruled that publication is necessary if the effective date is not shown g. Respondents argue that this is logical only if effectivity of laws = fact of publication i. Art. 2 does not prevent the requirement of publishment ii. Sec. 1 of CA 638, however, provides the contents of the Official Gazette. However, it is important to consider Sec. 2the Gazette may be published as frequently as is needed, thus implying that it may NOT even be published at all. h. CA 638s goal is to give prior notice of the laws. Without the publication as stipulated in 638, there would be no basis for the conviction of an individual in spite of ignorance. i. However, it is important to consider the period1985 is a time when the President would have powers similar to the legislature (Marcos period; either as a dictator or as a prime minister, Marcos had legislative powers).

i. Under the Civil Code and CA 638, the laws passed by the legislature had to be published. ii. However, this does not account for all presidential issuances. j. Explanation of provisions of CA 638 is provided i. The use of the modal shall implies obligation. Thus, the publication of the Official Gazette, as a means of informing people of pertinent information, is a public duty. ii. Publication of all presidential issuances of a public nature is mandated by law. However, some orders may not concern the public, and need not be published on the basis that concerned parties were informed. k. Court declaration re: gazette publication i. Presidential issuances of general application that have not been published shall have no effect ii. Problem: effects on prior decrees l. Citation from Rutter vs Esteban and Chicot vs Baxter: i. What if a party had already gained from a law when the law was declared unconstitutional by the Court? m. Contd Court declaration i. PD 1019-1030, 1278, 1937-1939 have not yet been published; no texts can be ascertained; no copies; however, they were never implemented ii. Pesigan v Angeles: publication is necessary s.t. the public can be informed of the regulations to make the penalties binding n. Decision i. The government must refrain from prosecuting violators of criminal laws until published in the Gazette, even if the laws provide that they shall take effect immediately. ii. All unpublished issuances of general application shall have no effect unless published. B. Fernandos concurring speech a. The publication need not be confined to the Official Gazette. There are more practical means. b. The Philippine Constitution does not require the publication of laws as a prerequisite for effectivity. However, guarantee of due process requires notice of laws to affected parties before they can be bound. Notice is not necessarily by publication in the gazette. c. Judge Learned Hand: law as the command of government must be ascertainable in some form if it is to be enforced. Publication is thus essential. d. Issue: What is the jural effect of past decrees/acts not published? e. The Civil Code is itself a legislative enactment. It does not have the force of a constitutional command. A later legislative/executive act can legally provide for a stronger/different rule. f. Unpublished acts not published in the gazette are not necessarily devoid of legal character.

C. Teehankees concurring speech a. Before the public is bound by a law, publishing of the law must first take place and people officially and specially informed of the contents and penalties. D. Melencio-Herreras concurring speech a. Even if a decree provides a date of effectivity, it must still be published. b. When a date of effectivity is mentioned in the decree but the decree becomes effective only fifteen days after publication, it does not mean that the decree has an effect from the specified date until the end of the 15 day period. E. Planas opinions a. Laws need not be published in the Official Gazette. In fact, the gazette itself is not required for a statute to be effective, if said laws provide for an effectivity date. b. Regarding Art. 2 of the Civil Code: end provisiondoes not apply to a law with a built-in effective date, and recognizes that a different mode of notice may be used. c. CA 638 does not even specify that the laws need to be published in order for them to be effective. It simply stipulates the creation of such organ. Not all the laws are required to the published.

Fuentes vs Roca A. Summary of Facts/Case a. Sabina Tarroza owned 358 sq m lot in Canelar, Zamboanga b. Oct. 11 1982: sold lot to her son, Tarciano Roca under deed of absolute sale, but the title was not yet transferred to his name c. 1988: Taciano offered to sell lot to the Fuentes spouses d. Meet at Atty. Plagatas office for documents of sale e. Agreement dated Apr. 29, 1988- sale was to take effect in six months i. Fuents pays 60000 for transfer of lot title ii. In six months, Tarciano was to clear lot of structures and occupants, and secure consent of his estranged wife, Rosario. iii. If Tarciano complies, Fuentes would take lot and pay additional 140000-160000 depending on demolition of house. If not, Fuentes would receive the lot without further formalities. f. Agreement was left with Atty. Plagata i. Went to see Rosario in a trip to Manila and had her sign affidavit of consent ii. Notarized Rosarios affidavit in Zamboanga g. January 11, 1989 deed of absolute sale executed + 140000, and title was issued; house was built h. January 28, 1990 Tarciano passed away; Rosario followed 9 months after i. 1997 Rocas file action for annulment of sale and reconveyance of land i. Sale was void because Rosario did not give her consent (forged signature) j. Fuentes denied allegations i. Plagata stated that he was in Rosarios residence in Paco, Manila on Sept. 15, 1988 ii. Notarizatiion still took place in Zamboanga on January 11, 1989 iii. Claim of forgery was personal to Rosario iv. Four-year period of nullification had already passed k. February 1, 2005 RTC dismissed case based on j-iv and Rocas failed to present clear evidence. The defective notarization did not invalidate sale. Law does not require spousal consent. Irregularity does not vitiate consent. l. Appeal CA reversed decision. Found evidence of forgery and did not consider Plagata. The jurat was seen to have significant variance in signatures. Also, they consider the fact that the couple had been separated for 30 years. m. Since the couple was married 1950, Civil Code was considered: action for annulment can take place within 10 years. Action was in 1997, and fell within the period. Sale was then seen as voidable. n. CA held that annulment entitled Fuenteses to reimbursement of payment plus interest, and from Art. 448 (builders of good faith), payment of value of improvements introduced. CA did not award damages in favour of the Rocas and deleted award of attorneys fees to Fuentes spouses.

B. Issues Presented a. Rosarios signature was forged b. Rocas action for declaration of nullity was prescribed/was within period c. Rosario, whose consent was not had, could bring the action to annul sale C. Courts Rulings (in relation to b-a) a. The signature was indeed forged. i. Difference bet. Affidavit of consent and specimen signatures ii. Clash: signing in Manila and affidavit in Zamboanga iii. Strokes differ, and letters R and S were different iv. Signatures were made at a time near the supposed affidavit of consent v. No evidence that Rosario was hampered by an illness/condition vi. Separation increases temptation to just forge signature b. Plagata admittedly falsified the jurat of the affidavit of consent i. Time of signing was different: Zamboanga/Manila ii. Falsified jurat strips the document of its power as proof of consent iii. Ergo, the sale is void without authentic consent D. Courts Rulings (in relation to b-b and b-c) a. Family Code applies to the situation although the couple was married in 1950 i. Sale took place in January 11, 1989, months after the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988 b. Family Codes articles change situation entirely i. Civil Code 1. Conjugal partnership based on property relations 2. Art. 165 Tarciano is sole administrator 3. Art. 166 prohibited Tarciano from selling commonly owned property without wifes consent. If sold without consent, it is voidable. 4. Art. 173 Rosario could annul the sale within 10 years of date of sail. If not, she or her heirs may only demand for the value of property. ii. Family Code 1. Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of gains superseded Civil Codes Book I, Title VI on Property Relations between Husband and Wife 2. Art. 105 - Provisions apply to previous conjugal partnerships without prejudice to vested rights 3. Art. 124 No period in which Rosario could choose to annul the sale. Without the consent, sale is void. 4. Civil Code re contracts: A void contract has no force and effect. However, if any terms have been performed, an action to declare the inexistence is necessary (e.g. reversals). E. Closing Arguments a. Fuentes argued that sale was nullified based on fraud, so four year period is considered for the petition

i. Victim was actually the Fuentes because they believed that the property was genuine. They were the ones who were victims of fraud, but they did not act within the four-year period ii. If Rosario sold the document under false representation that the property would go to the children, she should have filed within the period. However, the case is not the samethere was no consent. There was no sale. Forgery proves lack of consent b. Rosario had the right to declare void the sale i. The right to declare void the sale was lost, but only because the sale was void to begin with. ii. Property belonged to the Rocas heirs under Art. 429 of the Civil Code c. Fuentes spouses would receive some considerations i. Rocas would pay back the amount paid to Tarciano (200000 with interest) ii. As the Fuentes acted in good faith and thought that everything was in order, Art. 526 of the Civil code notes them as possessors in good faith. They are not obliged to pay for their stay in the property prior to the interruptions. iii. Art. 448 they are entitled for indemnity for improvements introduced d. Rocas could copt to consider Art. 546 of the Civil Code, which will indemnify the Fuentes spouses for the costs of improvements or paying for increase in value due to improvements. F. Decision a. Sale is declared void b. Certificate of title is returned to Tarciano Roca, married to Rosario Gabriel c. Rocas are ordered to pay the Fuentes spouses 200,000 with interest d. Rocas are ordered, if chosen, to indemnify the Fuentes spouses with their expenses for improvements on the land e. RTC of Zamboanga is directed to receive evidence and determine indemnities that the Fuentes spouses are entitled to