DETAILS

Docket No.: G.R. No. 187587 Case Title: Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig Inc. v.
Military Shrine Services
Ponente: CJ. Sereno Case Date: June 5, 2013
Topic: Law Publication

DOCTRINE

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 laws.

FACTS
1. On 12 July 1957, by virtue of Proclamation No. 423, President Carlos P. Garcia reserved parcels of
land in the Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Province of Rizal and Pasay City for a
military reservation.

2. On 28 May 1967, President Ferdinand E. Marcos (President Marcos) issued Proclamation No.
208, amending Proclamation No. 423, which excluded a certain area of Fort Bonifacio and reserved
it for a national shrine. The excluded area is now known as Libingan ng mga Bayani, which is under
the administration of herein respondent Military Shrine Services – Philippine Veterans Affairs
Office (MSS-PVAO).

3. Again, on 7 January 1986, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, further amending
Proclamation No. 423, which excluded barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan and Signal
Village from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 and declared it open for disposition under
the provisions of Republic Act Nos. (R.A.) 274 and 730. At the bottom of Proclamation No. 2476,
President Marcos made a handwritten addendum, which reads: "P.S. – This includes Western
Bicutan.

4. The crux of the controversy started when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official
Gazette3 on 3 February 1986, without the above-quoted addendum.

5. Years later, on 16 October 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino (President Aquino) issued Proclamation
No. 172 which substantially reiterated Proclamation No. 2476, as published, but this time excluded
Lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 and declared the said lots
open for disposition under the provisions of R.A. 274 and 730. Memorandum Order No. 119,
implementing Proclamation No. 172, was issued on the same day.

6. Through the years, informal settlers increased and occupied some areas of Fort Bonifacio
including portions of the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Thus, Brigadier General Fredelito Bautista issued
General Order No. 1323 creating Task Force Bantay (TFB), primarily to prevent further unauthorized
occupation and to cause the demolition of illegal structures at Fort Bonifacio.
 7. Members of petitioner Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. (NMSMI) and Western Bicutan
Lot Owners Association, Inc. (WBLOAI) filed for a Petition with Commission on Settlement of Land
Problems (COSLAP) praying for the reclassification of the areas they are occupying as is already
alienable and disposable.

8. COSLAP issued a Resolution granting the Petition and declaring the portions of land in question
alienable and disposable with Associate Commissioner Lina Aguilar-General dissenting.

9. The COSLAP ruled that the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was an integral part of
Proclamation No. 2476, and was therefore, controlling. The intention of the President could not
be defeated by the negligence or inadvertence of others.

10. Herein respondent MSS-PVAO filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the COSLAP in
a Resolution dated 24 January 2007. So the MSS-PVAO filed a Petition with the Court of Appeals seeking
to reverse the COSLAP Resolutions dated 1 September 2006 and 24 January 2007.

11. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and set aside and reversed the Resolution by COSLAP.

12. Both NMSMI12 and WBLOAI appealed the said Decision by filing their respective Petitions for
Review in the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

HELD/RATIONALE
1. Whether or not the Court of
Appeals erred in ruling that the
subject lots were not alienable
and disposable by virtue of
Proclamation No. 2476 on the
ground that the handwritten
addendum of President Marcos
was not included in the
publication of the said law.
NO. The handwritten addendum of President Marcos did not have the
force and effect law since it was not included in the publication. The
Supreme Court agreed that 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 laws.
Article 2 of the Civil Code expressly provides:
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.

The requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the

law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided. The phrase "unless
otherwise provided" refers to a different effectivity date other
than after fifteen days following the completion of the law’s
publication in the Official Gazette, but does not imply that the
requirement of publication may be dispensed with.
 Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive
orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative
powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or,
at present, directly conferred by the Constitution.

Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of
skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious
pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as
binding unless their existence and contents are confirmed by a
valid publication intended to make full disclosure and give
proper notice to the people.

DISPOSITION
▪ WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petitions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 97925 dated 29 April 2009 is
AFFIRMED in toto. Accordingly, this Court's status quo order dated 17 June 2009 is hereby LIFTED.
Likewise, all pending motions to cite respondent in contempt is DENIED, having been rendered moot.
No costs.