GARVIDA vs., SALES, Jr. disqualification/ineligibility.

He cannot be declared as successor

simply because he did not get the majority or the plurality of votes –
the electorate did not choose him. It would have been different if
FACTS: In 1996, Lynette Garvida filed her candidacy to the position
Sales was able to prove that the voters still voted for Garvida
of Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of a barangay in
despite knowing her ineligibility, this would have rendered her votes
Bangui, Ilocos Norte. Her candidacy was opposed by her rival
“stray”.
Florencio Sales, Jr. on the ground that she is over 21 years old (21
years old, 9 months at the time of the filing). Nevertheless, the trial Under Section 435 of the LGC, the SK Chairman should be succeeded
court ordered that she be admitted as a candidate and the SK by the SK member who obtained the highest number of votes, should
elections went on. Sales, in the meantiume, filed a petition to cancel the SK member obtaining such vote succeed Garvida?**
the certificate of candidacy of Garvida. When the elections results (**Not to be confused with Sales’ situation – Sales was a candidate
came in, Garvida won with a vote of 78, while Sales got 76. Garvida for SK chairmanship not SK membership.)
was eventually proclaimed as winner but had to face the petition The above argument can’t be considered in this case because
filed by Sales. Section 435 only applies when the SK Chairman “refuses to assume
Garvida, in her defense, averred that Section 424 of the Local office, fails to qualify, is convicted of a felony, voluntarily resigns,
Government Code (LGC) provides that candidates for the SK must be dies, is permanently incapacitated, is removed from office, or has
at least 15 years of age and a maximum age of 21 years. Garvida been absent without leave for more than three (3) consecutive
states that the LGC does not specify that the maximum age months.” Garvida’s case is not what Section 435 contemplates. Her
requirement is exactly 21 years hence said provision must be removal from office by reason of her age is a question of eligibility.
construed as 21 years and a fraction of a year but still less than 22 Being “eligible” means being “legally qualified; capable of being
years – so long as she does not exceed 22 she is still eligible because legally chosen.” Ineligibility, on the other hand, refers to the lack of
she is still, technically, 21 years of age (although she exceeds it by 9 the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution or the statutes for
months). holding public office. Ineligibility is not one of the grounds
ISSUE: Whether or not Garvida met the age requirement. enumerated in Section 435 for succession of the SK Chairman.
HELD: No. Section 424 of the Local Government Code provides that
candidates for SK must be:
1. Filipino citizen;
2. an actual resident of the barangay for at least six months;
3. 15 but not more than 21 years of age; and
4. duly registered in the list of the Sangguniang Kabataan or in
the official barangay list.
The provision is clear. Must not be more than 21 years of age. The
said phrase is not equivalent to “less than 22 years old.” The law
does not state that the candidate be less than 22 years on election
day. If such was the intention of Congress in framing the LGC, then
they should have expressly provided such.
Sales claims that he obtained the second highest number of vote,
hence he should be declared as the SK Chairman, is this a valid
contention?
No. Applying the ruling in Labo vs COMELEC, a defeated candidate,
though obtaining the second highest number of vote, is not deemed
to have been elected by reason of the winner’s eventual
 PNB vs CA Ruling:
G.R. No. 98382 No. The first date falls on a Friday while the second and third dates
May 17, 1993 are on a Friday and Saturday, respectively. Section 3 of Act No. 3135
requires that the notice of auction sale shall be "published once a
Facts:Two parcels of land under the common names of the week for at least three consecutive weeks". Evidently, petitioner
respondent Epifanio dela Cruz, his brother and sister were bank failed to comply with this legal requirement. The Supreme
mortgaged to the Petitioner Philippine National Bank. The lots were Court held that:
mortgaged to guarantee the by three promissory notes. The first The rule is that statutory provisions governing publication of notice
two were not paid by the respondent. The third is disputed by the of mortgage foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and
respondent who claims that the correct date is June 30, 1961; those even slight deviations therefrom will invalidate the notice and
however, in the bank records, the note was really executed on June render the sale at least voidable.
30, 1958. WHEREFORE, the petitions for certiorari and intervention are hereby
PNB presented under Act No. 3135 a foreclosure petition of the dismissed and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
mortgaged lots. The lots were sold or auctioned off with PNB as the affirmed in toto.
highest bidder. A Final Deed of Sale and a Certificate of Sale was
executed in favor of the petitioner. The final Deed of Sale was
registered in Registry of Property. Inasmuch as the respondent did
not buy back the lots from PNB, PNB sold on the same in a "Deed of
Conditional Sale". The Notices of Sale of foreclosed properties were
published on March 28, April 11 and April 12, 1969 in a newspaper.
Respondent brought a complaint for the reconveyance of the lands,
which the petitioner allegedly unlawfully foreclosed. The petitioner
states on the other hand that the extrajudicial foreclosure,
consolidation of ownership, and subsequent sale were all valid.
The CFI rendered its Decision; the complaint against the petitioner
was dismissed.
Unsatisfied with the judgment, respondent interposed an appeal
that the lower court erred in holding that there was a valid
compliance in regard to the required publication under Sec. 3 of Act.
3135.
Respondent court reversed the judgment appealed from by
declaring void, inter alia, the auction sale of the foreclosed pieces of
realty, the final deed of sale, and the consolidation of ownership.
Hence, the petition with SC for certiorari and intervention.
Issue:
WON the required publication of The Notices of Sale on the
foreclosed properties under Sec. 3 of Act 3135 was complied.
 Yaokasin v Commissioner Digest executive, administrative orders and proclamations shall be
GR No. 84111, December 22, 1989 published except when these have no general applicability.

Facts: The Philippine Coast Guard seized 9000 sacks of refined sugar
owned by petitioner Yaokasin, which were then being unloaded
from the M/V Tacloban, and turned them over to the custody of the
Bureau of Customs. On June 7, 1988, the District Collector of
Customs ordered the release of the cargo to the petitioner but this
order was subsequently reversed on June 15, 1988. The reversal was
by virtue ofCustoms Memorandum Order (CMO) 20-87 in
implementation of the Integrated Reorganization Plan under P.D. 1,
which provides that in protest and seizure cases where the decision
is adverse to the government, the Commissioner of Customs has the
power of automatic review.
Petitioner objected to the enforcement of Sec. 12 of the Plan and
CMO 20-87 contending that these were not published in the Official
Gazette. The Plan which was part of P.D. 1 was however published
in the Official Gazette.

Issue: W/n circular orders such as CMO 20-87 need to be published

in the OG to take effect

NO.
Article 2 of the Civil Code does not apply to circulars like CMO 20-87
which is an administrative order of the Commissioner of Customs
addressed to his subordinates, the custom collectors. Said issuance
requiring collectors of customs to comply strictly with Section 12 of
he Plan, is addressed only to particular persons or a class of persons
(the customs collectors), hence no general applicability. As held in
Tanada v. Tuvera, “It need not be published, on the assumption that
it has been circularized to all concerned.”

Moreover, Commonwealth Act. 638 provides an enumeration of

what shall be published in the Official Gazette. It provides that
besides legislative acts, resolutions of public nature of Congress,