TANADA v.
TUVERA respondents heavily anchors their point based on
G. R. No. L-63915
4 April 1985
Escolin, J.
FACTS:
1. Petitioners have listed many unpublished
presidential issues such as Presidential Decrees,
Letter of Instructions, General Orders, Proclamations,
Executive Orders, Letters of Implementation,
Administrative Orders. They are compelling
respondents and seeking writ of mandamus to
publish the unpublished presidential issues on
general circulation or cause the publication in the
Official Gazette.
2. The respondents dismissed the petition as the
petitioners are deemed as not “aggrieved parties”
since they lack legal standing and not directly
affected by the alleged non-publication of the
presidential issuances in question. They added that
petitioners are without the requisite legal personality
to institute a mandamus proceeding.
3. Respondents pointed out that publication in the
Official Gazette is a not sine qua non requirement as
stated on Article 2 of the Civil Code, “Laws shall take
effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion
of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided,..”
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not petitioners have the requisite legal
personality to issue writ of mandamus for the
respondents to publish the presidential issues.
2. Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette
is a sine qua non requirement
RULING:
1. Yes, the petitioners have the requisite legal
personality to issue a writ of mandamus. While the
respondents claim the petitioners are not “aggrieved
parties” since they are not directly affected based on
Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Petition for
Mandamus. According to the 1910 case of Severino
vs. Governor General, while the general rule of writ
of mandamus is to protect a private individual’s
particular right or interest, nevertheless, “when the
question is one of public right and the objects of the
mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public
duty, the people are regarded as the real party In
interest and the relator at whose instigation the
proceedings are instituted not show that he has any
legal or special interest in the result, it being
sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such
interested in the execution of the laws.” In this case,
the petitioners are a proper party to seek writ of
mandamus as they are representing the public by
protecting the public’s interest with compelling the
petitioners to publish the questionable presidential
decrees.
2. Yes, the questioned presidential issues should be
published in Official Gazette as the publication is a
sine qua non requirement for the laws to be
effectively and correctly implemented. While the
Article 2 of Civil Code, “Laws shall take effect after 15
days following the completion of their publication in
the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided..”
The provisions weren’t mentioned on the said article.
Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides
as follows:
“Section 1. There shall be published in the Official
Gazette [1] all important legislative acts and
resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the
Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative
orders and proclamations, except such as have no
general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of
decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals may be deemed by said courts of sufficient
importance be so published; [4] such documents or
classes of documents as may be required so to be
published by law; and [5] such documents or classes
of documents as the President of the Philippines shall
determine from time to time have general
applicability and legal effect, or which may authorize
so to be published.”
It is unmistakably clear that respondents shall publish
all in the Official Gazette except those with no
general applicability. Additionally, those unpublished
Presidential issuances may be deemed as
unconstitutional and has no binding force and effect
since respondents didn’t follow the said provisions. In
Pesigan v. Rosales, the Court ruled that “publication
is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of
[penal] regulations and make the said penalties
binding on the persons affected thereby. “Ignorantia
legis non excusat.” Ignorance of law excuses no one.
The public has constitutional right to be informed
with the presidential decrees especially those stating
penalties and fines as there should be adequate
notice to what laws they should follow as a good
citizen.
DECISION:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to
publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished
presidential issuances which are of general
appllication, and unless so published, they shall have
no binding force and effect.
 RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. 14, 1992 is vacated, the decision of Intermediate
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and BF HOMES, Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. SP-06313 REVERSED
INC. and SET ASIDE, and the judgment of the Regional
H. R No. 74851 Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region, Branch
9 December 1999 140, in Civil Case No. 10042 REINSTATED.
MELO, J.

FACTS:
1. BF Homes filed a “Petition for Rehabilitation and
for Declaration of Suspension of Payments” (SEC Case
No. 002693) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). This is a ruling wherein “whenever
a distressed corporation asks SEC for rehabilitation
and suspension of payments, preferred creditors may
no longer assert such preference but stand on equal
footing with other creditors.”

2. An extra-judiical foreclosure sale was issued by the

Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, with the request of RCBC as
one of the creditors and mortgagee.

3. The public auction sale was cancelled as SEC issued

a temporary restraining order, effective for 20 days,
with SEC Case No. 002693. But, it was later
rescheduled on January 29, 1985.

4. On January 25, 1985, SEC ordered issuance of writ

of preliminary injunction upon petitioners filing of a
bond. However, petitioner didn’t file until the very
day of the auction sale, January 29, 1985

5. BF Homes filed in the SEC a consolidated motion to

annul the auction sale. Even with RCBC’s opposition,
the sheriff has withheld the delivery of certificate of
sale to RCBC because of the proceedings in the SEC as
it has issued a writ of preliminary injunction to stop
the auction sale two weeks late

6. With the Sheriff’s suspension of the delivery of

certificate of certificate of sale, RCBC filed an action
for mandamus against the provincial sheriff of Rizal
with the Regional Trial Court, Br. 140, Rizal. But, it has
remained firm with the suspension.

7. SEC appointed a management committee for BF

Homes.

8. The trial court ordered respondents (BF Homes) to

deliver to petitioner the Certificate of the Auction
Sale of January 29, 1985. However, the IAC (Court of
Appeals) has annulled and set aside the case until the
SEC Case No. 002639 has been resolved, dismissing
the mandamus case filed by RCBC. However,
petitioner files a motion for reconsideration.

9.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the

DECISION
WHEREFORE, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
is hereby GRANTED. The decision, dated September