PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Case Digests

Case 01 – TAÑADA v. TUVERA, GR 63915, December 29, 1986 [Per J. Cruz, En Banc]

ISSUE: Is publication necessary for laws to be valid and to take effect?

FACTS: Lorenzo M. Tañada, along with the other members of Arid Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood,
Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI), invoked due process and demanded the disclosure of several
presidential decrees. Petitioners argue that said presidential decrees had not been published as mandated by
law. The government asserts that the decrees declared themselves to be effective immediately upon approval
even without publications as provided by the exception “otherwise provided” in the Civil Code of the Philippines.

RULING: Yes, publications is necessary for laws to be valid and to take effect. Article 2 of the Civil Code provides
that laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official
Gazette. The exception “unless it is otherwise provided” in Article 2 refers to the date as to when the law shall
take effect after its publication; this does not pertain to the law coming into effect whether or not it was
published. The reason for the indispensability of the publication is that this would contradict the object of the
law – that which is to give the general public a proper notice of the laws that are supposed to regulate their
actions as citizens. According to the Court, it would be the height of injustice to punish citizens for transgression
of laws which they had no knowledge about. It was also clarified that the requirement of publications shall be
applicable to all laws except those whose nature are interpretative and merely internal. Hence, the Court ruled
that all laws must, upon their approval, be immediately published in full in the Official Gazette pursuant to
Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Case 02 – REPUBLIC v. PILIPINAS SHELL, GR 173918, April 08, 2008 [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]

ISSUE: Can the Ministry of Finance (MOF) Circular No. 1-85 dated 15 April 1985, as amended by Department of
Finance (DOF) Circular No. 2-94, be considered as a valid administrative issuance?

FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the Department of Energy (DOE), filed an appeal
assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated 04 August 2006. In said case, the MOF Circular No. 1-85 was
declared ineffective for failure to comply with Section 3 of Chapter 2, Book 7 of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Under said Section, administrative issuances must be published and filed in the Office of the National
Administration Register (ONAR). Petitioner argues that MOF Circular No. 1-85 (1) cannot be rendered invalid by
its failure to comply with a law that was only enacted after the issuance of the latter and that (2) it has received
vitality from a legislative enactment.

RULING: No, MOF Circular No. 1-85 shall not be considered a valid administrative issuance. Article 2 of the New
Civil Code states that laws shall take effect only after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette or in any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Also, Section 3
of Chapter 2, Book 7 of the Administrative Code of 1987 requires administrative issuances to be filed with ONAR.
It specifies that rules already in force, such as the MOF Circular No. 1-85, must be filed within three (3) months
from the date of effectivity of said Code, otherwise the former shall cease to be the basis of any sanction against
any party. Contrary to the Petitioner’s claim, Section 3 of Chapter 2, Book 7 of the Administrative Code of 1987
can be applied to a MOF Circular No. 1-85 as it is a procedural law and thus provides for its own retroactivity.
Case 03 – SEC v. GMA, GR 164026, December 23, 2008 [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]

ISSUE: Is Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1994 a valid basis
for computing the filing fee to be paid by GMA?

FACTS: The Petitioner contradicts the previous Decision of the Court of Appeals directing the former to make
SEC Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 1986 be the basis for the computation of fees. The Petitioner upholds
that SEC Memorandum Circular No. 2 is valid as it was issued in the exercise of SEC’s delegated power to fix fees
and charges. On the otherhand, GMA argues that said memorandum was not published nor filed with the Office
of the National Administration Register (ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center thus rendering it
invalid.

RULING: No, SEC Memorandum Circular No. 2 is not a valid basis for the computation of fees. The Court affirmed
its previous decision since the Petitioner was amiss in observing the directives of Republic Act (RA) No. 3531
which state that the same fee shall be imposed for the filing of articles of incorporation and the filing of amended
articles of incorporation to extend corporate life. Furthermore, SEC Memorandum Circular No. 2 is not merely
interpretative of R.A 3531 but is the implementation of its mandate and affects the public at large. Therefore,
to invoke its effectivity, it must have been published either in the Official Gazette or in any newspaper of general
circulation and filed with the Office of the National Administration Register (ONAR) as both mandated by Article
2 of the New Civil Code and the Administrative Code of 1987, respectively.

Case 04 – COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AICHI, GR 184823, October 06, 2010 [Per J. Del Castillo,
First Division]

ISSUE: Did Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. filed their claim for refund/credit of input VAT within the two-
year prescriptive period of Sections 112(A) and 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1987?

FACTS: Respondent filed for a refund/credit of input VAT for the period July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002 from
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on 30 September 2004. The Court decided in favor of the Respondent and
partially granted the request for refund. Petitioner argues that the refund shall not be valid for failure to submit
the necessary requirements within the prescriptive period as provided by the NIRC since 2004 is a leap year,
thus the prescriptive period expired on 29 September 2004.

RULING: Yes, Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. filed their claim within the prescriptive period. While it is true
that Article 13 of the New Civil Code states that a year shall be understood as having three hundred and sixty-
five (365) days, the Administrative Code of 1987 also states that a year is composed of 12 calendar months.
Given that both laws deal with the same subject matter and manifests an incompatibility in dealing with the
same, the latter shall govern in the computation of year, being the more recent law following the legal maxim,
lex posteriori derogat priori. Hence, the Respondent’s claim for refund which was filed on 30 September 2004
was within the two-year prescriptive period.
Case 05 – BERNABE v. ALEJO, GR 140500, January 21, 2002 [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]

ISSUE: Is Adrian’s right to an action for recognition a vested right?

whether Adrian’s right to an action for recognition, which was granted by Article 285 of the Civil Code, had
already vested prior to the enactment of the Family Code. Our answer is affirmative.

FACTS: Ernestina Bernabe, the sole heir of the late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe, requests for the review of the
Court’s Decision in favor Adrian Bernabe. Ernestina argues that Adrian has no cause for action to file for
recognition as provided in Article 285 of the Civil Code as it was expressly repealed by the provisions of the
Family Code.

RULING: Yes, Adrian’s right to an action for recognition is a vested right. Albeit the Family Code states that an
action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent, it
shall not have a retroactive effect on Adrian’s right to file for an action for recognition since said right was
already vested to him by Article 285 of the Civil Code which was prior to the enactment of the Family Code.
Article 255 of the Family Code avers that it shall have retroactive effect except in cases wherein vested or
acquired rights through the Civil Code or other laws shall be prejudiced or impaired. Hence, the Decision of the
Court that Adrian be given the right to file for petition for recognition, within four years from attaining majority
age, was affirmed.