WHEN LAWS TAKE EFFECT

UNIQUE FACTS / ISSUE JURISPRUDENCE PROVISIONS of the CIVIL CODE

Tañada v. Tuvera Effect and Application of Laws

When the Supreme Court should repeal or
modify a law:
When the law is to be published:
The task of the Supreme Court is merely to interpret and apply the law
The Supreme Court cannot rule upon the wisdom of a law to repeal or
modify it, if it finds it impractical. That is not its function. That function
belongs to the legislature. The task of the Supreme Court is merely to
interpret and apply the law as conceived and approved by the political
departments of the government in accordance with prescribed procedure.
The publication must be in full and must be made in the Official
Gazette.
The publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose
is to inform the public of the contents of the law. It must be made in the
Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity
after 15 days from such publication or after a different period provided by
the legislature.
Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in
the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided. This Code shall take effect one year
after such publication. (1a)
Note:
The laws say “after 15 days following,”
meaning on the 16th day following publication.
Thus, when an ordinary law or presidential
decree is therefore completely published in an
issue of the Official Gazette dated September
12, 2002, it become effective on September
28, 2002, unless otherwise provided,

When circulars must be published: The circulars must be published if they are meant to fill-in the details
of the law.

The circulars issued by the Monetary Board must be published if they are
meant not merely to interpret but to fill-in the details of the Central Bank
Act (RA 265) which that body is supposed to enforce.

People v. Que Po Lay

When the circular had not yet been As the circular had not yet been published in the Official Gazette
published: before the alleged criminal act was committed, the circular should
have no effect on respondent’s act and that he should be acquitted.
 The Court held that Po Lay is correct for the circular has the force of law,
and should have been published. Moreover, as a rule, circulars which
prescribe a penalty for their violation should be published before becoming
effective.

This is based on the general principle and theory that before the public is
bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation, or
circular must first be published, and the people officially and specifically
informed of said contents and the penalties for violation thereof.

Phil. Association of Service Exporters v. Hon. Ruben Torres, et al.

When the circular lacks proper Lack of proper publication and filing of the questioned circular renders
publication: it legally invalid, defective and unenforceable.

While the questioned circulars are a valid exercise of the police power as
delegated to the executive branch of the Government, nevertheless, they
are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of proper
publication and filing in the Office of the National Administrative Register as
required in Art. 2 of the Civil Code.

Tayug Rural Bank v. CB

When a conflict exists between the basic
law and a rule or regulation issued to
implement it:
A rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the
basic law
If conflict exists between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to
implement it, the basic law prevails. Said rule or regulation cannot go
beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. Rules that subvert the
statute cannot be sanctioned Except for constitutional officials who can
trace their competence to act on the fundamental law itself, a public official
must locate in the statute relied upon, a gran of power before he can
exercise it. Department zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority
conferred by statute.
 Manuel Lara, et al. v. Petronilo del Rosario, Jr.

When there is a repeal: The new Civil Code in Art. 2271 repealed the provisions of the Code of
Commerce governing agency.

The services of the plaintiffs ended September 4, 1960, when the new Civil
Code was already in force. The new Civil Code in Art. 2271 repealed the
provisions of the Code of Commerce governing agency, one provision of
which was Art. 302. Hence, the plaintiffs are no longer entitled to their one-
month severance pay.

Note:
After this case was decided, an Act (RA 1052) was passed providing for a
one-month severance pay or a one-month notice in case of dismissal from
a job where the term of employment has not been definitely fixed.
 IGNORANCIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT
UNIQUE FACTS / ISSUE JURISPRUDENCE PROVISIONS of the CIVIL CODE

Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee Ignorance of the Law

What is the scope of Ignorance of the Law? When we say “ignorance of the law,’’ we refer not only to Art. 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no
the literal words of the law itself, but also to the meaning or one from compliance therewith.
interpretation given to said law by our courts of justice.

When there is ignorance of foreign law: Ignorance of foreign law is not ignorance of the law, but
ignorance of the fact.

Ignorance of foreign law is not ignorance of the law, but ignorance of the
fact because foreign laws must be alleged and proved as matters of fact,
there being no judicial notice of said foreign laws.

Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Fisher, et al.

When foreign law is not properly alleged In the absence of proof, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as
and proved: our law.

Except for a mere allegation in his answer, which is not sufficient, the
record is bereft of any evidence as to what English law says on the matter.
In the absence of proof, the Court is justified, therefore, in indulging in what
Wharton calls "processual presumption," in presuming that the law of
England on this matter is the same as our law.

Republic v. Emilio Guanzon

When the mortgage credit was transferred The Philippines has legal interest in the mortgage loans, because the
to our government by the U.S.: mortgage credit was transferred to our government by the U.S. thru
the Philippine Property Act of 1946.
 Emilio Guanzon borrowed money from the Bank of Taiwan during the
Japanese occupation. Security was given in the form of a real mortgage on
two parcels, and a chattel mortgage on the crops growing on said parcels.
When the Philippines was liberated in 1946, the mortgage credit was
acquired by the United States, and later transferred to the Philippines thru
the Philippine Property Act of 1946 (of the US Congress, and therefore, a
foreign law). The Philippines then filed an action for foreclosure. The lower
court dismissed the action, firstly, on the ground that the Philippines is not
a party in interest (has no real legal interest in the mortgage loans), and
secondly, on the ground that the foreign law cited cannot be taken judicial
notice of, and resultantly, cannot be effective in our country.

The Supreme Court held that the Philippines has legal interest in the
mortgage loans, because the mortgage credit was transferred to our
government by the U.S. thru the Philippine Property Act of 1946 (a foreign
law duly acquiesced in by both the executive and legislative branches of
our government).

Because of such consent, said foreign law can be taken judicial notice of,
and therefore can be given effect in our country.

Ocampo v. Judge Arcaya-Chua

When there is gross ignorance of the law:
Judge Arcaya-Chua is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

Under RA 9262, otherwise known as The Anti-Violence Against Women

and Their Children Act of 2004, a TPO cannot be issue in favor of a man
against his wife.

U.S. v. Enriquez

When there is mere ignorance of fact: Upon the reasonable belief after due search that the wife missing for
10 years is dead, respondent does not incur criminal responsibility.

When there is ignorance of law which
prohibits drugs:
When ignorance of the law is based on
good faith:
A man who marries a second wife upon the reasonable belief after due VOIDABLE CONTRACTS
search that his wife, missing for 10 years, is dead, does not incur criminal
responsibility even if it turns out that the first wife is still alive. This is merely Art. 1390. The following contracts are
ignorance of the fact. voidable or annullable, even though there
may have been no damage to the contracting
Bar Question: parties:
Is there any difference in the legal effect between “ignorance of the
law” and “ignorance as mistake of fact”? (1) Those where one of the parties is
incapable of giving consent to a contract;
Yes, there is a difference. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse for
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by
not complying with it, ignorance of fact eliminates criminal intent as long as
mistake, violence, intimidation, undue
there is no negligence. In addition, mistake on a doubtful or difficult
influence or fraud.
question of law may be the basis of good faith (Art. 526, Civil Code).
Mistake of fact may, furthermore, vitiate consent in a contract and make it These contracts are binding, unless they are
voidable (Art. 1390, id). annulled by a proper action in court. They are
susceptible of ratification.
U.S. v. Que-Quenco
Ignorance of the law prohibiting the possession of certain drugs, like
opium, cannot excuse criminal responsibility.
Kasilag v. Rodriguez POSSESSION AND THE KINDS THEREOF
One who possesses land by virtue of a void contract is considered a Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in good
possessor in good faith if the law involved is comparatively difficult to faith who is not aware that there exists in his
comprehend. title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it.
Thus, it has been held that one who possesses land by virtue of a void
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who
contract can, nevertheless, be considered a possessor in good faith if the
possesses in any case contrary to the
law involved is comparatively difficult to comprehend, and as such he is
foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult
entitled to reimbursement for useful improvements he had introduced on
question of law may be the basis of good
the land before he is deprived of the land.
faith.
 Note:
The Civil Code specifically provides that a mistake on a doubtful or difficult
question of law may be the basis of good faith (Art. 526). This does not
mean, however, that one is excused because of such ignorance. He is still
liable, but his liability shall be mitigated, i.e., while he will still be considered
as a debtor, he will be a debtor in good faith.

Asuncion v. Hon. Casiano P. Anunciacion, Jr.

When there is ignorance of the law on the Denial of complainants’ right to be assisted by counsel and defend
part of the judge: themselves constitute oppressive and precipitate action which
violated their human rights.

Respondent Judge’s denial of complainants’ right to be assisted by counsel

and the right to defend themselves, even as their father (Marcelo Asuncion)
pleaded for postponement of the proceedings because his lawyer was not
available at the time, constitute oppressive and precipitate action by
respondent Judge who displayed arrogance and gross ignorance of the law
and violated the complainants’ human rights.

Atty. H. Balayon, Jr. v. Judge G. Ocampo

Every court has the power and indeed the duty to amend or reverse its
findings and conclusions when its attention is timely called to any
error or defect therein.

That this is the second complaint charging respondent Judge of issuing a

search warrant and/or warrant of arrest in violation of the requirement of
persona knowledge of the facts and circumstances by the applicant and his
witnesses. This does not speak well of respondent Judge’s appreciation
and application of the law. It would be beneficial for both respondent Judge
and those whose cases would fall within his jurisdiction, if respondent
updated himself with the law and the latest jurisprudence.
 Del Rosario, et al. v. Bascar, Jr., et al.

When there is ignorance of the law on the The deputy sheriff acted with gross ignorance of the law in making an
part of the sheriff: unreasonable and unnecessary levy in the process of enforcing the
writ of execution.

Respondent acted with gross ignorance of the law in making an

unreasonable and unnecessary levy in the process of enforcing the writ of
execution of a decision ordering specific performance and payment of a
fine of P2,000.

The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged

with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding justice to the lower
clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His
conduct, at all times, must only be characterized by propriety and decorum
but above all else be above suspicion.

Respondent’s actuations in enforcing the Writ of Execution of HSRC Case

REM-0006-210685 did not live up to this strict standard.

Boto v. Villena

When incompetence amounts to ignorance Failure to apply the basic rule on jurisdiction amount to ignorance of
of the law: the law for this is a reflection of lark of prudence, if not his
incompetence, in the performance of his duties.

Rubin v. Corpus Cabochan

When the judge committed mere errors of A judge cannot be administratively sanctioned from mere errors of
judgment: judgment in the absence of bad faith, fraud, malice, gross ignorance,
corrupt purpose, or a deliberate intent to do an injustice on his or her
part.