Case No.

1 (a)
Tañada vs Tuvera
G.R. No. L-63915
April 24, 1985

Facts:
- Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to publish, and/or cause
the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of
instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation,
and administrative orders.
- Respondents, through the Solicitor General, moved for the dismissal of the case on the
ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant
petition.
- The view is submitted that in the absence of any showing that petitioners are personally
and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential
issuances, said petitioners are without the requisite legal personality to institute this
mandamus proceeding
- Petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its
object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show any specific
interest for their petition to be given due course.

Issue: Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is a requisite before any law or statute
become, effective, and binding.

Ruling:
- Yes. The publication of presidential issuances “of a public nature” or “of general
applicability” is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person
may by bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.
- Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that “Laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided”.
- Further, the first clause of Section I of Commonwealth Act 638 reads: “There shall be
published in the Official Gazette…”, in which the word “shall” used therein imposes
upon respondent officials an imperative duty.
- Therefore, publication in the Official Gazette is a requisite before any law or statute
become, effective, and binding.
Case No. 1 (b)
Tañada v. Tuvera
G.R. No. L-63915
December 29, 1986

Facts:
- In the decision of the case on April 24, 1985, the Court ordered respondents “to publish
the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general
application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.”
- Petitioners move for the reconsideration/clarification of the decision with the following
questions:
o What is meant by “law of public nature” or “general applicability”?
o Must a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which
are not?
o What is meant by “publication”?
o Where is the publication to be made?
o When is the publication to be made?
- The respondent claimed first that the motion was a request for an advisory opinion and
should therefore be dismissed, and, on the merits, that the clause "unless it is otherwise
provided" in Article 2 of the Civil Code meant that the publication required therein was
not always imperative; that publication, when necessary, did not have to be made in the
Official Gazette; and that in any case the subject decision was concurred in only by three
justices and consequently not binding.

Issue:
a. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws
which are not
b. Whether or not publication can be made in any publications, other than the Official
Gazette
c. Whether or not the decision is not binding considering it was concurred only by three
justices.

Ruling:
- No. All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published
as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless
a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
- The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to
the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted.
- Under Article 2 of the Civil Code, the publication of laws must be made in the Official
Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity after fifteen days from
such publication or after a different period provided by the legislature.
- The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to repeal or
modify it if found impractical. This function belongs to the legislature.
- Therefore, all laws shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as
possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after
fifteen days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in
accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code.
Case No. 2
Sps. Fortuna v. Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. 173423
March 5, 2014

Facts:
- In December 1994, the spouses Fortuna filed an application for registration of a 2,597-
square meter land identified as Lot No. 4457
- Sps. Fortuna claimed that they, through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest,
have been in quiet, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted possession of Lot No. 4457 for
more than 50 years, and submitted as evidence the lot’s survey plan, technical
description, and certificate of assessment.
- In its Decision dated May 7, 2001, the RTC granted the application for registration in
favor of the spouses Fortuna.
- In its decision dated May 16, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision.
- Sps. Fortuna seek a review of the CA rulings.
- They contend that the applicable law is Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or
the Public Land Act (PLA), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942. RA No. 1942
amended the PLA by requiring 30 years of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession to acquire imperfect title over an agricultural land of the public domain.
- This 30-year period, however, was removed by PD No. 1073 and instead required that
the possession should be since June 12, 1945. The amendment introduced by PD No.
1073 was carried in Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Degree (PRD).
- The spouses Fortuna point out that PD No. 1073 was issued on January 25, 1977 and
published on May 9, 1977; and the PRD was issued on June 11, 1978 and published on
January 2, 1979. On the basis of the Court’s ruling in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc.,
et al., they allege that PD No. 1073 and the PRD should be deemed effective only on
May 24, 1977 and January 17, 1979, respectively. By these dates, they claim to have
already satisfied the 30-year requirement under the RA No. 1942 amendment because
Pastora’s possession dates back, at the latest, to 1947.

Issue: Whether or not Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act. No. 141 or Public Land Act (PLA), as
amended by Republic Act No. 1942 is the applicable law for registration of a 2,597-square
meter land identified as Lot No. 4457 in favor of the spouses Fortuna.

Ruling:
- No. The petition is denied for failure of the spouses Fortuna to sufficiently prove their
compliance with the requisites for the acquisition of title to alienable lands of the public
domain
- Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states that “[the] Decree shall take effect upon its
promulgation,” the Court has declared in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al. that
the publication of laws is an indispensable requirement for its effectivity.
- Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 should be understood to mean that the decree
took effect only upon its publication, or on May 9, 1977. This, therefore, moves the cut-
off date for applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under
Section 48(b) of the PLA to May 8, 1947. In other words, applicants must prove that they
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since May 8, 1947.
- The spouses Fortuna were unable to prove that they possessed Lot No. 4457 since May
8, 1947.
- Hence, the applicable law for registration of a 2,597-square meter land identified as Lot
No. 4457 is PD No. 1073, wherein the petition of Sps. Fortuna is denied.