You are on page 1of 4


TUVERA 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985)

FACTS: The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for the dismissal of a case, where petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations and administrative orders in the Official Gazette. Petitioners invoke their right to be informed on matters of public concern and that it should be that laws enacted must be published to be valid and enforceable. SG contends that petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and enforceable. HELD: Art. 2 of the Civil Code provides the reason for the statute to be a legal standard to be binding among the society and humankind. The clear object of this provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. Failure to perform such duty of publicizing the enacted statute is a violation of the Constitutional right of citizens which is the right to be informed, and such would sway the individual to commit acts which he/she thought at first as rightful but is punishable by law. There will be no such basis of the maxim, ignorantia legis non excusat. The Court declared that presidential issuances of general application which have not been published have no force and effect.

SALITA V MAGTOLIS 2 33 SCRA 100 JUNE 13, 1994 FACTS: Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married on January 25, 1986. Separated in1988 and Erwin sued for annulment on the basis of psychological incapacity. Salita, filed annulment on the grounds that Erwin is psychologically incapacitated, also moved for bill of particulars ISSUE: Whether bill of particulars submitted by Erwin is of sufficient definiteness to enable petitioner to properly prepare her responsive pleading HELD: YES. Supreme Court held that the bill of particulars filed by Erwin is sufficient to state a cause of action. Private respondent already alleged that petitioner is unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession. To demand more detail would be asking for information on evidentiary facts.SC sees no need to define or limit the scope of Art. 36 of the Family Code since the actual issue is with the sufficiency of the bill of particulars. SC affirmed CA decision.

GO VS. YAMANE 489 SCRA 107 G.R. No. 160762 May 3, 2006 Property purchased by spouses during the existence of their marriage is presumed to be conjugal in nature. Facts: Before the Court is a Petition for Review of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding a disputed land between spouse Josephine and Henry Go herein petitioner against respondent Leonardo Yamane. The CA reversed the decision of the lower court favoring the herein respondent of a land which he claimed conjugal in nature between him and his late wife. The said property was levied to satisfy the lien for attorney's fees and was scheduled to be sold at public auction. Four days prior to the auction sale, respondent filed a Third-Party Claim with the Office of the Provincial Sheriff to stop the public auction on the ground that the subject property is conjugal property and, therefore, should not be held answerable for the personal obligation of the Pucay sisters in satisfying the previous attorneys fee. However, the Sheriff proceeded with the auction sale despite respondent's protest. The subject property was sold to spouses Josephine and Henry Go and is now the titled owner of the lot. Respondent filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial Court against the spouse for annulment and cancellation of auction sale upon the same ground stated in the abovementioned thirdparty claim. The motion was denied by the trial court. The CA reversed this RTC's decision. In this case, petitioners move to review CAs decision on the ground that the respondent could not take legal stand before the court because the property in dispute is not conjugal in nature. Issues: WON the subject property is conjugal or paraphernal. Held: The purchase of the property had been concluded in 1967, before the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. Accordingly, the transaction was aptly covered by the then governing provisions of the New Civil Code. Article 160 of the New Civil Code provides that "all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.

The Petition is DENIED.