EFFECTS AND APPLICATION OF Whether or not distinction shall be

LAWS made between laws of general applicability

and laws which are not.
Tanada v. Tuvera G.R. No. L-63915
April 24, 1985 Whether or not publication is made
only in the Official Gazette.
Facts:
Ruling:
By invoking people’s right to be
informed on matters of public concern, I.
petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to
No. Distinction is unnecessary. The
compel respondent to publish various
presidential issuances in the Official Gazette. Court held that the term “laws” refer to all
laws, not only to those of general
Issues: application.
Whether or not publication is a sine II.
qua non requirement for the effectivity of the
laws where the laws themselves provide for Yes, based on the current provision,
publication shall be made in the Official
their own effectivity.
Gazette. On the issue of publication, the
Ruling: Court ruled that publication shall be made
in the Official Gazette, and it is the
Yes. The writ of mandamus is
discretion of the legislature to provide other
granted. The Court orders respondents to
avenue for publication. The Court further
publish in the Official Gazette all
states that publication shall be made in full,
unpublished presidential issuances which
otherwise there is no publication at all. With
are of general application, and unless so publication, there is a conclusive
published, they shall have no binding force
presumption that every person knows the
and effect. law.
[Comment: Intention of publication is to Moreover, the Court held that the
give notice to the public the contents of the phrase “unless it is otherwise provided”
law. Hence, law of general application are refers to the date of effectivity. Thus,
to be published to have a binding force and publication is indispensable.
effect.]
In summary, the Court ruled that all
Tanada v. Tuvera G.R. No. L-63915
laws shall be published in full in the Official
December 29, 1986 Gazette, to become effective only after
a.k.a. Publication cases fifteen days from their publication, or in
another date specified by the legislature.
Facts:
[Comment: The Court excludes the following
On the preceding case, the Court from publication: Letters of instructions,
orders the publication of presidential Interpretative regulations, and Municipal
issuances of general application, and unless Orders]
so published, shall have no binding force and
effect. Acaac v. Azcuna G.R. No. 187378
September 30, 2013
Issues:
a.k.a. Capayas Case
Facts: a.k.a. West Bicutan Case
Petitioner Philippine Eco-Tourism Facts:
and Livelihood Inc. (PETAL) founded by
Ramonito Accaac assailed the validity of the Proclamation No. 423 was signed by
ordinance passed by the Municipal of Lopez President Garcia designating parcel of lands
Jaena prohibiting the entry of entities in the as military reservation. President Marcos
sanctuary and construction of structure amended the proclamation excluding several
thereof. parcel of lands, declaring it alienable open
for disposition. Further amendment was
Petal alleged the following: made by President Marcos excluding Upper
and Lower Bicutan, and Signal Village, with
a) It was adopted without public a handwritten addendum excluding Western
consultation; Bicutan. However, the handwritten
b) It was not published in a newspaper addendum was not included in the
of general circulation; and publication.
c) It was not approved by the SP.
Petitioners prayed for the
RTC declared the ordinance void, adding reclassification of Western Bicutan as
that Capayas Island is timberland, and only disposable land for COSLAP, which was
the National Government can has authority granted on the grounds that the handwritten
and control over the timberland. CA reversed addendum is controlling, being the intention
the decision declaring that it was deemed
of President Marcos. CA set aside the
approved due to SP’s inaction. CA also noted
decision of COSLAP.
that public consultation were made, and
notice was posted in conspicuous place for Issue:
the subject ordinance.
Whether or not the handwritten
Issue: addendum has the force and effect of law?
Whether or not the subject ruling is Ruling:
valid and enforceable against petitioner.
No. The Court held that without
Ruling: publication, the note never had any legal
force and effect.
Yes. The Court upheld the CA’s
ruling. The ordinance was deemed valid due CIR v. Primetown Property Group Inc.
to SP’s inaction. The Court is not convince to G.R. No. 162155 August 28, 2007
petitioner’s contention that it was adopted
a.k.a. Prescription period case
without publication and in the absence of
due notice. The Court invoked the Facts:
presumption of validity of the ordinance.
Primetown applied on March 11, 1999
[Comment: Municipal ordinances are not for an income tax refund or credit paid in
required to be published in newspaper of 1997. On May 13, 1999, designated revenue
general circulation.] officer required Primetown to submit
NMSMI v, PVAO-MSS G.R. No. 187587 additional document to which they
June 5, 2013 complied. Due to BIR’s inaction, Primetown
elevated the case to the CTA on April 14,
WBLOA v. PVAO-MSS G.R. No. 187654 2000. However, the petition was dismissed
June 5, 2013 since it was filed beyond the 2-year
prescription period, pursuant to Art. 13 of Petitioner filed two (2) estafa cases
NCC (years= 365 days). Primetown again respondents for issuing 2 dishonored
appealed to CA which reversed the decision. checks, amounting to P 300,000.00 each, in
payment of their loan.
Issue:
RTC dismissed the the case for failure
Whether or not the petition was filed of the prosecution to prove the elements of
within the two-year period. the crime. In another RTC, petitioner lodged
Held: a case for recovery of damages amounting to
P 600,000.00 covering the same amount for
Yes. Petition was filed within the two the dishonored checks. Petitioner argued
year period based on the Administrative that since the estafa cases was filed in 1999,
Code of 1987 ( year= 12 months, without the 2000 Revised Rule on Criminal
regard to days). The aforementioned statute Procedures should not apply, as it must be
being the more recent law, governs the given prospective application.
computation of legal periods.
Issue:
Montajes v. People G.R. No. 183449
March 12, 2012. Whether or not the Rules on Criminal
Procedure may be retroactively apply.
a.k.a. Saturday Case
Ruling:
Facts:
Yes. The Court held that the 2000
Petitioner was found GUILTY on the Rules on Criminal Procedure partakes the
crime of direct assault as affirmed by the nature of procedural laws and it can be given
RTC. Petitioner prayed to the CA for an retroactive effect since no vested right may
extended period to file a petition for review attach, nor arise from, procedural laws.
for 15 days, from May 21 to June 5. The CA
dismissed the petition for being filed out of Columbia v. CA G.R. No. 110318 August
time. The Petitioner argues that under the 28, 1996
Rules of Court, the period shall commenced Facts:
on the next working day if due date falls on
Saturday or Sunday, not on the original date Petitioners through counsel lodged a
(Saturday). complaint to the the NBI for violation of P.D.
No. 49 (Protection of Intellectual Property. A
Issue:
search warrant was issued by the RTC. The
Whether or not the period of same warrant was quashed by the RTC upon
extension commenced on May 19 (original the motion of private respondents since RTC
date) retroactively applied the 20th Century Fox
Ruling. The CA held upheld the quashal of
Ruling: the search warrant.
Yes. The Court clarified that the Issue:
period shall be counted form the original due
date, not on the next working day on which Whether or not the the 20th Century
the motion for extension was filed. Hence, Fox ruling is applicable in this instant case.
the petition was filed two days late. Ruling:
Cheng v. Sy G.R. No. 174238 July 7,
2009
 No. The Court held that the Elegado v. CTA G.R. No. L-68385 May
aforementioned ruling cannot be applied in 12, 1989
this case. Judicial interpretation forms part
Facts:
of the law as of the date it was passed. When
the old doctrine by the Court was reversed, Petitioner was served two deficiency
the new doctrine shall be applied assessment for estate tax for the estate of
prospectively, and should not adversely Warren Graham. The Commissioner
affect the cases who relied on the old doctrine canceled the second assessment, leaving the
and acted in faith therein. first assessment final and demandable. The
Frivaldo v. COMELEC G.R. No. 120295 petitioner came to the Court alleging that the
first assessment is not binding because the
June 28,1996
return was filed by foreign lawyers who had
Facts: no knowledge of the tax laws.
Petitioner filed his candidacy for Issue:
Governor 3 weeks before the election.
Whether or not the lack of knowledge
Respondent, the opposing candidate, filed a
petition to disqualify by reason of not beaing of the foreign lawyers excuses the
a citizen of the Philippines. Second Division petitioner’s liability for deficiency estate tax.
of COMELEC promulgated a resolution Ruling:
granting the petition, which was
subsequently affirmed by the En Banc. Yes. The Court ruled that foreign
lawyers cannot be excused from compliance
Petitioner garnered the highest vote. therewith because of their ignorance.
Respondent filed a petition for his
proclamation, and granted by the Famanila v. CA 500 SCRA 76
COMELEC. The petitioner filed a petition for Facts:
the annulment of such proclamation alleging
that he had already taken his oath of Petitioner was a former messman of
allegiance as Filipino citizen by virtue of NFD International Manning Agents, Inc.,
repatriation. repatriated to the Philippines due to a health
condition, and was subsequently declared
Issue: permanents, totally disabled.
Whether or not Frivaldo’s Petitioner was offered settlement of
repatriation was valid $13,200.oo to which he accepted as evidence
Ruling: by his signature in the Receipt and Release.

Yes. The Court ruled that his Petitioner filed a complaint for
repatriation was valid and legal, and shall be disability benefits to NLRC, to which was
retroactively applied given the curative dismissed.
nature of Presidential Decree No. 725. The Issue:
memorandum issued by by President Aquino
does not repeal, express or implied, PD N O. Whether or not the disability benefits
725. Hence, upon taking the oath of claim are deemed waived.
allegiance, the applicant is deemed to have
Ruling:
reacquired the Philippine citizenship.
Petitioner was therefore qualified to be Yes. The Court ruled that the
proclaimed Governor. agreement entered into represents
reasonable settlement. The provisions in the
Receipt and Release was clear and
unambiguous, the intent of which was
General Release- release to all liabilities of
any character, claims or damages, losses or
any other liabilities whatsoever.
Herrera v. Borromeo G.R. No. L-41171
July 23,1987
Facts:
Fortunato claimed a portion of the legitime
being an illegitimate son of the deceased, by
incorporating a Waiver of Hereditary Rights
supposedly signed by the rest of the
Borromeo’s. In the waiver, of the 9 heirs
relinquished to Fortunato their shares in the
disputed estate. The petitioners opposed this
Waiver for reason that this is without force
and effect because there can be no effective
waiver of hereditary rights before there has
been a valid acceptance of the inheritance
from the heirs who intend to transfer the
same.
Issue:
Whether or not the Waiver of Hereditary
Rights is valid
Ruling:
No. The Court ruled that in the absence of
clear and convincing intent to relinquish a
right, the waiver cannot be considered
effective. The intention to waive a right or
advantage must be shown clearly and
convincingly, and when the only proof of
intention rests in what a party does, his act
should be so manifestly consistent with, and
indicative of an intent to, voluntarily
relinquish the particular right or advantage
that no other reasonable explanation of his
conduct is possible.