SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS

DOMINGO SARCOS, as Mayor of Barobo, Surigao del Sur petitioners vs HON. RECARELO
CASTILLO, Provincial Governor of Surigao del Sur & the Hon. Provincial Board of Surigao del
Sur respondents

FACTS:
Sarcos, an independent candidate, won in the 1 !ove"ber 1#$% elections, as Mayor of
Barobo, Surigao del Sur. &astillo charged Sarcos with "isconduct and dishonesty in office.
Such act alleged constituted connivance with certain private individuals, to cut and fell ti"ber
and selling of the ti"ber cut, for own use and benefit, within the co""uncal forest reserve of
the "unicipality of Barobo, Surigao del Sur, to the da"age and pre'udice of the public and the
govern"ent.

(s early as 1) (pril 1#$ there was already a charge under oath for abuse of official power in
consenting to and authori*ing the violations of forestry laws was filed against petitioner by
Municipal &ouncil of Barobo. +t was on the basis of this ad"inistrative co"plaint that the
&astillo filed petition ordering the i""ediate suspension of Sarcos fro" position as Mayor
saying that the acts co""itted by "ayor Sarcos affects his official integrity, the petition was in
accordance with the Sec., of -( ,1),. /ecentrali*ation (ct of 1#$%.

ISSUES:
01! Provincial Governor is vested power to order preventive suspension of Mayor Sarcos
under -( ,1),

HELD / RATIONALE:
!o. &astillo as governor lac2s authority to order the preventive suspension of the Petitioner,
Sarcos. (ccording to the /ecentrali*ation (ct of 1#$%, particularly the paragraph dealing with
preventive suspension3 456he President, Provincial Board and &ity or Municipality &ouncil, as
the case "ay be, shall hear and investigate the truth or falsity if the charges within 1. days
after receipt of such notice.4 +t was the for"er law Sec. 71)) of -ev. (d". &ode which gives
power to the Governor to order preventive suspension, however, it was already repealed by
the /ecentrali*ation (ct of 1#$%.

6he court was also lead to the suspicion that politics was a cause for the order by Governor of
the preventive suspension of the Mayor, being an independent candidate thus of a different
political persuasion.

6he writs of certiorari and prohibition are then granted. 6he preventive suspension order by
&astillo is annulled and set aside. Mayor Sarcos to be reinstated to his position.

86he /ecentrali*ation (ct, to which the decision in this case is based, a"ended 9 repealed
Sec. 71)), -ev. (d". &ode. 6he for"er law provides that the provicnicla gorvernor, if the
charge against a "unucupola officaial was "unicipal official was one affecting his official
integrity, could order his preventive suspension. +t was repealed by the -( !1. ,1), Sec. ,
which provides that now it is the provincial board which has been granted the power to order
preventive suspension.
-epublic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 104528 J!"#$ 18, 1%%&
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL 'AN(, petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATOR) 'OARD,
ALFONSO MAGLA)A, ANGELINA MAGLA)A P. RE)ES, JORGE C. 'ERNARDINO,
CORA*ON DE LEON, VICTORIANO ACA)A, FLORENCIA CULTURA, MARIA CAMPOS,
ERNESTO SARMIENTO SANTIAGO TAMONAN, APOLONIA TADIA+UE, SIMEON DE
LEON, NATIVIDAD J. CRU*, NATIVIDAD '. LORESCO, FELICIDAD GARCIA, ANA ANITA
TAN, LUCAS SERVILLION, JOSE NARA,AL, #-.#-/-!0-1 2$ 03-4# 1"5$ "03o#46-1
A00o#!-$74!7F80, CORA*ON DE LEON AND SPOUSES LEOPOLDO AND CARMEN
SE'ASTIAN, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
PANGANI'AN, J.:
May a buyer of a property at a foreclosure sale dispossess prior purchasers on install"ent of
individual lots therein, or co"pel the" to pay again for the lots which they previously bought
fro" the defaulting "ortgagor.subdivision developer, on the theory that P./. #,%, 46he
Subdivision and &ondo"iniu" Buyers: Protective /ecree4, is not applicable to the "ortgage
contract in ;uestion, the sa"e having been e<ecuted prior to the enact"ent of P./. #,%= 6his
is the ;uestion confronting the &ourt in this Petition challenging the /ecision dated March 1>,
1##7 of the 1ffice of the President of the Philippines in 1.P. &ase !o. 7#, signed by the
?<ecutive Secretary, @ran2lin M. /rilon, 4by authority of the President.4
Private respondents were buyers on install"ent of subdivision lots fro" Mari2ina Aillage, +nc.
Brepresented by spouses (ntonio and Susana (studilloC. !otwithstanding the land purchase
agree"ents it e<ecuted over said lots, the subdivision developer "ortgaged the lots in favor of
the petitioner, Philippine !ational Ban2. Dnaware of this "ortgage, private respondents duly
co"plied with their obligations as lot buyers and constructed their houses on the lots in
;uestion.
Subse;uently, the subdivision developer defaulted and P!B foreclosed on the "ortgage. (s
highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, the ban2 beca"e owner of the lots.
(cting on suits brought by private respondents Bwhich were later consolidatedC, the HED-B
1ffice of (ppeals, (d'udication and Eegal (ffairs B1((E(C in a decision rendered on 1ctober
7), 1#)) ruled that P!B . without pre'udice to see2ing relief against Mari2ina Aillage, +nc. .
"ay collect fro" private respondents only the 4re"aining a"orti*ations, in accordance with the
land purchase agree"ents they had previously entered into with4 Mari2ina Aillage, +nc., and
cannot co"pel private respondents to pay all over again for the lots they had already bought
fro" said subdivision developer. 1n May 7, 1#)#, the Housing and Eand Dse -egulatory
Board affir"ed this decision. 1n March 1>, 1##7, the 1ffice of the President, invo2ing P./.
#,%, li2ewise concurred with the HED-B. Hence, the present recourse to this &ourt.
Dnder -evised (d"inistrative &ircular !o. 1.#,, 4appeals fro" 'udg"ents or final orders of
the . . . 1ffice of the President . . . "ay be ta2en to the &ourt of (ppeals . . .4 However, in order
to hasten the resolution of this case, which was dee"ed sub"itted for decision three years
ago, the &ourt resolved to "a2e an e<ception to the said &ircular in the interest of speedy
'ustice.
Petitioner ban2 raised the following issues3
1. 6he 1ffice of the President erred in applying P./. #,% because said law was enacted
only on Fuly 17, 1#%$, while the sub'ect "ortgage was e<ecuted on /ece"ber 1),
1#%,G and
7. Petitioner Ban2 is not privy to the contracts between private respondents and
"ortgagor.subdivision developer, hence, the 1ffice of the President erred in ordering
petitioner Ban2 to accept private respondents: re"aining a"orti*ations and issue the
corresponding titles after pay"ent thereof.
!or"ally, pursuant to (rticle of the &ivil &ode, 4BlCaws shall have no retroactive effect, unless
the contrary is provided.4 However, it is obvious and indubitable that P./. #,% was intended to
cover even those real estate "ortgages, li2e the one at issue here, e<ecuted prior to its
enact"ent, and such intent Bas succinctly captured in the prea"ble ;uoted belowC "ust be
given effect if the laudable purpose of protecting innocent purchasers is to be achieve3
0H?-?(S, it is the policy of the State to afford its inhabitants the re;uire"ents of
decent hu"an settle"ent and to provide the" with a"ple opportunities for i"proving
their ;uality of lifeG
0H?-?(S, numerous reports reveal that many real estate subdivision owners,
developers, operators, and/or sellers have reneged on their representations and,
obligations to provide and maintain properly subdivision roads, drainage, sewerage,
water systems, lighting systems, and other similar basic requirements, thus
endangering the health and safety of home and lot buyers;
0H?-?(S, reports of alarming magnitude also show cases of swindling and fraudulent
manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and
operators, such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from liens and
encumbrances, and to pay real estate taxes, and fraudulent sales of the same
subdivision lots to different innocent purchasers for valueG
1
B?"phasis suppliedC.
0hile P./. #,% did not e<pressly provide for retroactivity in its entirety, yet the sa"e can be
plainly inferred fro" the un"ista2able intent of the law to protect innocent lot buyers fro"
sche"ing subdivision developers. (s between these s"all lot buyers and the gigantic financial
institutions which the developers deal with, it is obvious that the law . as an instru"ent of
social 'ustice . "ust favors the wea2. +ndeed, the petitioner Ban2 had at its disposal vast
resources with which it could ade;uately protect its loan activities, and therefore is presu"ed
to have conducted the usual 4due diligence4 chec2ing and ascertained Bwhether thru ocular
inspection or other "odes of investigationC the actual status, condition, utili*ation and
occupancy of the property offered as collateral. +t could not have been unaware that the
property had been built on by s"all lot buyers. 1n the other hand, private respondents
obviously were powerless to discover the atte"pt of the land developer to hypothecate the
property being sold to the". +t was precisely in order to deal with this 2ind of situation that P./.
#,% was enacted, its very essence and intend"ent being to provide a protective "antle over
helpless citi*ens who "ay fall prey to the ra**"ata** of what P./. #,% ter"ed 4unscrupulous
subdivision and condo"iniu" sellers.4
6he intent of the law, as culled fro" its prea"ble and fro" the situation, circu"stances and
condition it sought to re"edy, "ust be enforced. Sutherland, in his well.2nown treatise on
Statutory &onstruction B;uoted with approval by this &ourt in an old case of conse;uence,
1ngsia2o vs. Ga"boa
7
C, says3
6he intent of a statute is the law. +f a statute is valid it is to have effect according to the
purpose and intent of the law"a2er. 6he intent is the vital part, the essence of the law,
and the pri"ary rule of construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent. 6he
intention of the legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and "ust be enforced when
ascertained, although it "ay not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. &ourts
will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away fro" the true intent and purpose
of the legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act.
+ntent is the spirit which gives life to a legislative enact"ent. +n construing statutes the
proper course is to start out and follow the true intent of the legislature and to adopt that
sense which har"oni*es best with the conte<t and pro"otes in the fullest "anner the
apparent policy and ob'ects of the legislature.
H
6ruly, this &ourt cannot allow the in'ustice that will be wrought by a strictly prospective
application of the law. Eittle people who have toiled for years through blood and tears would be
deprived of their ho"es through no fault of their own. (s the Solicitor General, in his co""ent,
argues3
Aerily, if P./. #,% were to e<clude fro" its coverage the aforecited "ortgage contract,
the vigorous regulation which P./. #,% see2s to i"pose on unconscientious subdivision
sellers will be translated into a feeble e<ercise of police power 'ust because the iron
hand of the State cannot particularly touch "ortgage contracts badged with the
fortunate accident of having been constituted prior to the enact"ent of P./. #,%. +ndeed,
it would be illogical in the e<tre"e if P./. #,% is to be given full force and effect and yet,
the fraudulent practices and "anipulations it see2s to curb in the first instance can
nevertheless be liberally perpetrated precisely because P./. #,% cannot be applied to
e<isting antecedent "ortgage contracts. 6he legislative intent could not have
conceivably per"itted a loophole which all along wor2s to the pre'udice of subdivision
lot buyers Bprivate respondentsC.

Ei2ewise noteworthy are certain provisions of P./. #,%, which the"selves constitute strong
argu"ents in favor of the retroactivity of P./. #,% as a whole. 6hese are Sections 7>, 7l and 7H
thereof, which by their very ter"s have retroactive effect and will i"pact upon even those
contracts and transactions entered into prior to P./. #,%:s enact"ent3
Sec. 7>. Time of Completion. . Every owner or developer or shall construct and provide
the facilities, i"prove"ents, infrastructures and other for"s of develop"ent, including
water supply and lighting facilities, which are offered and indicated in the approved
subdivision or condo"iniun plans, brochures, prospectus, printed "atters, letters or in
any for" of advertise"ent, within one year fro" the date of the issuance of the license
for the subdivision or condo"iniu" pro'ect or such other period of ti"e as "ay be fi<ed
by the (uthority.
Sec. 71. Sales rior to !ecree. . "n cases of subdivision lots or condominium units sold
or disposed of prior to the effectivity of this !ecree, it shall be incumbent upon the
owner or developer of the subdivision or condominium pro#ect to complete compliance
with his or its obligations as provided in the preceding section within two years from the
date of this !ecree unless otherwise e<tended by the (uthority or unless an ade;uate
perfor"ance bond is filed in accordance with Section $ hereof.
@ailure of the owner or developer to co"ply with the obligations under this and the
preceding provisions shall constitute a violation punishable under Section H) and H# of
this /ecree.
Sec. 7H. $on%&orfeiture of ayments. . !o install"ent pay"ent "ade by a buyer in a
subdivision or condo"iniu" pro'ect for, the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be
forfeited in favor, of the owner or developer when the buyer, after, due notice to the
owner or developer, desist fro" further pay"ent due to the failure of the owner or
developer to develop the subdivision or condo"iniu" pro'ect according to the approved
plans and within the ti"e li"it for co"plying with the sa"e. Such buyer "ay, at this
option, be rei"bursed the total a"ount paid including a"orti*ation interests but
e<cluding delin;uency interests, with interest thereon at the legal rate. Be"phasis
suppliedC
(s for ob'ections about a possible violation of the i"pair"ent clause, we find the following
state"ents of Fustice +sagani &ru* enlightening and pertinent to the case at bench3
/espite the i"pair"ent clause, a contract valid at the ti"e of its e<ecution "ay be
legally "odified or even co"pletely invalidated by a subse;uent law. +f the law is a
proper e<ercise of the police power, it will prevail over the contract.
+nto each contract are read the provisions of e<isting law and, always, a reservation of
the police power as long as the agree"ent deals with a "atter, affecting the public
welfare. Such a contract, it has been held, suffers a congenital infir"ity, and this is its
susceptibility to change by the legislature as a postulate of the legal order.
,
6his &ourt ruled along si"ilar lines in 'uare( vs. Court of )ppeals
$
3
6he petitioner co"plains that the retroactive application of the law would violate the
i"pair"ent clause. 6he argu"ent does not i"press. 6he i"pair"ent clause is now no
longer inviolateG in fact, there are "any who now believe it, is an anachronis" in the
present.day society. +t was ;uite useful before in protecting the integrity of private
agree"ents fro" govern"ent "eddling, but that was when such agree"ents did not
affect the co""unity in general. 6hey were indeed purely private agree"ents then. (ny
interference with the" at that ti"e was really an unwarranted intrusion that could
properly struc2 down.
But things are different now. More and "ore, the interests of the public have beco"e
involved in what are supposed to be still private agree"ents, which have, as a result
been re"oved fro" the protection of the i"pair"ent clause. 6hese agree"ents have
co"e within the e"brace of the police power, that obtrusive protector of the public
interest. +t is a ubi;uitous police"an indeed. (s long as the contract affects the public
welfare one way or another so as to re;uire the interference of the State, then "ust the
police power be asserted, and prevail, over the clause.
6he decision of the &ourt of (ppeals in *reta and +amor vs. ,ao, et al.
%
penned by then &ourt
of (ppeals (ssociate Fustice Fose (. -. Melo, now a respected "e"ber of this &ourt, is
persuasive, the factual circu"stances therein being of great si"ilarity to the antecedent facts
of the case at bench3
Protection "ust be afforded s"all ho"eowners who toil and save if only to purchase on
install"ent a tiny ho"e lot they can call their own. 6he consu"ing drea" of every
@ilipino is to be able to buy a lot, no "atter how s"all, so that he "ay so"ehow build a
house. +t has, however, been seen of late that these honest, hard.living individuals are
ta2en advantage of, with the delivery of titles delayed, the subdivision facilities, including
the "ost essential such as water installations not co"pleted, or worse yet, as in the
instant case, after al"ost co"pleting the pay"ents for the property and after
constructing a house, the buyer is suddenly confronted by the star2 reality, contrived or
otherwise, in which another person would now appear to be owner.
<<< <<< <<<
0e cannot over e"phasi*e the fact that the B(!I cannot barefacedly argue that si"ply
because the title or titles offered as security were clean of any encu"brance or lien, that
it was thereby relieved of ta2ing any other step to verify the over.reaching i"plications
should the subdivision be auctioned on foreclosure. 6he B(!I could not have closed its
eyes that it was dealing over a subdivision where there were already houses
constructed. /id it not enter the "ind of the responsible officers of the B(!I that there
"ay even be subdivision residents who have al"ost co"pleted their install"ent
pay"ents= Bid., pp. % & #C.
By the foregoing citation, this &ourt, thus adopts by reference the foregoing as part of this
/ecision.
6he real estate "ortgage in the above cited case, although constituted in 1#%, and outside the
beneficial aegis of P./. #,%, was struc2 down by the &ourt of (ppeals which found in favor of
subdivision lot buyers when the rights of the latter clashed with the "ortgagee ban2:s right to
foreclose the property. 6he &ourt of (ppeals in that case upheld the decision of the trial court
declaring the real estate "ortgage as null and void.
(s to the second issue of non.privity, petitioner avers that, in view of the provisions of (rticle
1H11 of the &ivil &ode, P!B, being a 4total stranger to the land purchase agree"ent,4 cannot
be "ade to ta2e the developer:s place.
0e disagree, P./. #,% being applicable, Section 1) of said law obliges petitioner Ban2 to
accept the pay"ent of the re"aining unpaid a"orti*ations tendered by private respondents.
Sec. 1). -ortgages. . !o "ortgage on any unit or lot shall be "ade by the owner or
developer without prior written approval of the (uthority, Such approval shall not be
granted unless it is shown that the proceeds of the "ortgage loan shall be used for the
develop"ent of the condo"iniu" or subdivision pro'ect and effective "easures have
been provided to ensure such utili*ation. 6he loan value of each lot or unit covered by
the "ortgage shall be deter"ined and the buyer thereof, if any, shall be notified before
the release of the loan. The buyer may, at his option, pay his installment for the lot or
unit directly to the mortgagee who shall apply the payments to the corresponding
mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit being paid for, with a view
to enabling said buyer to obtain title over the lot or unit promptly after full payment
thereof. Be"phasis suppliedC
Privity of contracts as a defense does not apply in this case for the law e<plicitly grants to the
buyer the option to pay the install"ent pay"ent for his lot or unit directly to the "ortgagee
BpetitionerC, which is re;uired to apply such pay"ents to reduce the corresponding portion of
the "ortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit being paid for. (nd, as stated
earlier, this is without pre'udice to petitioner Ban2:s see2ing relief against the subdivision
developer.
@inally, before closing this -esolution, we en'oin petitioner Ban2 to focus not only on the strictly
legal issues involved in this case but also to ta2e another loo2 at the larger issues including
social 'ustice and the protection of hu"an rights as enshrined in the &onstitutionG firstly,
because legal issues are raised and decided not in a vacuu" but within the conte<t of e<isting
social, econo"ic and political conditions, law being "erely a bric2 in the up. building of the
social edificeG and secondly, petitioner, being 6H? state ban2, is for all intents and purposes an
instru"ent for the i"ple"entation of state policies so cherished in our funda"ental law. 6hese
consideration are obviously far "ore weighty than the winning of any particular suit or the
ac;uisition of any specific property. 6hus, as the country strives to "ove ahead towards
econo"ic self.sufficiency and to achieve drea"s of 4!+&.hood4 and social well.being for the
"a'ority of our country"en, we hold that petitioner Ban2, the pre"ier ban2 in the country,
which has in recent years "ade record earnings and ac;uired an enviable international
stature, with branches and subsidiaries in 2ey financial centers around the world, should be
e;ually as happy with the disposition of this case as the private respondents, who were al"ost
deprived and dispossessed of their very ho"es purchased through their hard wor2 and with
their "eager savings.
0H?-?@1-?, in view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is hereby /?!+?/,
petitioner having failed to show any -?A?-S+BE? ?--1- or G-(A? (BDS? 1@
/+S&-?6+1! in the assailed decision. !o costs.
S1 1-/?-?/.
$arvasa, C.'., !avide 'r., -elo and &rancisco, ''., concur.
Co9-!11o# :/. D- V455 Bas chief of staff of the (@PC J -ight to bail of Military Personnel
F80/:
K 6he case 4!:o5:-/ 4 8o!/o5410-1 8/-/ o; 03- o;;48-#/ o; 03- AFP who are facing
prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup dL etat on /ece"ber 1.#, 1#)#3
G.R. No. %<1==.petition for certiorari, prohibition, "anda"us. ;uestioning the
conduct of 03- .#-70#45 .!-5 !1 03- 8#-04o! o; G-!-#5 Co"#0 M#045 >GMC No.
14?
G.R. No. %&%48.certiorari against the ruling denying the" the right to .#-7
-9.0o#$ 8355-!@- Bor that the Me"bers of general or special 8o"#0/79#045 9$ 2-
8355-!@-1 2$ 03- 88"/-1 o# 03- 0#45 A"1@- advocate for cause stated to the court.
6he court shall deter"ine the relevancy and validity thereof.C
G.R. No. %5020.certiorari. against the respondent 'udge on the ground that he
has no 'urisdiction of G&M !o. 1 and no authority to set aside its #"54!@ o; 1-!$4!@
245 0o .#4:0- #-/.o!1-!0/
G.R. No. %=454.certiorari. against the decision of -6& in .-0404o! ;o# 32-/
8o#."/ 14#-804!@ 03- #-5-/- o; 03- .#4:0- #-/.o!1-!0/. Furisdictional ob'ection are
also raised.
K &harges against the" include "utiny, conduct unbeco"ing an officer and a gentle"an,
and various cri"es in relation to "urder
K 6he pre.trail investigation BP6+C panel issued several letters of notice to the petitioners
for counter.affidavit and of the affidavits of their witnesses. (ll were "oved to delay and the
petitioners contend that there was no pre.trail investigation done
K +n G.-. !o. #,>7>, Etc. Facinto Eigot applied for bail and it was denied by GM& !o. 1.
6he -6& granted hi" provisional liberty but he was not released i""ediately, Mpending the
final resolution of the appeal to be ta2en.N 6hen the -6& ruled that the right to bail covers
"ilitary "en facing court."artial proceedings
I//"-/:
K 0hether there was violation of due process
K 0hether or not the "ilitary personnel are entitled to bail, thus, 01! there was a
violation of the right to bail
H-51:
K 6he petitioners in G.-. !os. #H1%% and #$#) were given several opportunities to be
heard when they were as2ed to sub"it their counter.affidavits to the P6+. 6hey cannot clai"
that they were denied due process. M@ailure to sub"it the afore"entioned counter.affidavits on
the date above specified shall be dee"ed a waiver of BtheirC right to sub"it controverting
evidence.4
K 4even a failure to conduct a pre.trial investigation does not deprive a general court.
"artial of 'urisdiction.4
K M0e find that the right to 245 invo2ed by the private respondents in G.-. !os. #,>7>
has 0#1404o!55$ !o0 2--! #-8o@!46-1 !1 4/ !o0 :4525- 4! 03- 94540#$, / ! -B8-.04o!
0o 03- @-!-#5 #"5- -92o14-1 4! 03- '455 o; R4@30/.C
K However, a right to speedy trial is given "ore e"phasis in the "ilitary, where the right to
bail does not e<ist.
K Solicitor GeneralLs e<planation of the e<ception3
K M6he "!4D"- /0#"80"#- o; 03- 94540#$ /3o"51 2- -!o"@3 #-/o! 0o -B-9.0 94540#$
9-! ;#o9 03- 8o!/040"04o!5 8o:-#@- o! 03- #4@30 0o 245.C
M5soldiers operate within the fra"ewor2 of de"ocratic syste", are allowed the fiduciary use of
firear"s by the govern"ent for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities and are paid
out of revenues collected fro" the people.N
M5the truly dis;uieting thought is that they could freely resu"e their heinous activity which
could very well result in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities,N
K !either does it violate e;ual protection because the "ilitary is not si"ilarly situated with
others.
K /ispositive part of the case3
K M(s in that case, we find that the #-/.o!1-!0/ 4! G.R. No. %<1== 3:- !o0 80-1 E403
@#:- 2"/- o; 14/8#-04o! o# E403o"0 o# 4! -B8-// o; A"#4/14804o! 0o A"/04;$ 03-
4!0-#:-!04o! o; 03- Co"#0 !1 03- #-:-#/5 o; 03- 80/ 8o9.54!-1 o; 2$ 03- .-0404o!-#/.
Such action is indicated, however, in G.-. !o. #$#), where we find that the right to
pere"ptory challenge should not have been denied, and in G.R. No/. %5020 !1 %=454,
E3-#- 03- .#4:0- #-/.o!1-!0/ /3o"51 !o0 3:- 2--! o#1-#-1 #-5-/-1.N
K M(&&1-/+!GEO, in G.-. !o. #H1%%, the petition is /+SM+SS?/ for lac2 of "erit. +n
G.-. !o. #$#), the petition is G-(!6?/, and the respondents are /+-?&6?/ to allow the
petitioners to e<ercise the right of pere"ptory challenge under (rticle 1) of the (rticles of 0ar.
+n G.-. !os. #,>7> and #%,, the petitions are also G-(!6?/, and the orders of the
respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby -?A?-S?/ and S?6
(S+/?. !o costs.N
Co#!-54 MATA'UENA
plaintiff%appellant : P-0#o!45 CERVANTES
defendant%appellee
PG.-. !o. E.7)%%1. March H1, 1#%1Q PG.-. !o. E.7)%%1. March H1, 1#%1Q
TOPIC: N0"#- !1 8o!8-.0 o; /00"0o#$ 8o!/0#"804o!
FACTS:
6he stipulated facts agreed upon by both the plaintiff and the defendant assistedby their
respective counsels, are31. 6he deceased @eli< Matabuena owned the property in ;uestionG7.
@eli< Matabuena e<ecuted a /eed of /onation inter vivos
/referring to a transfer or gift made during one0s lifetime, as opposed to a testamentary transfer
which is a gift that ta1es effect on death2
in favor of defendant, Petronila &ervantes over t he par cel of l and i n ;uest i on on
@ebruar y 7>, 1#,$, whi ch sa"e donat i on was accepted by defendantGH. 6he donation
of the land to Petronila BdefendantC which too2 effect i""ediately was "ade during the
co""on law relationship as husband and wife, they were "arried on March 7), 1#$7G.
6he deceased @eli< Matabuena died intestate on Septe"ber 1H, 1#$7G,. 6he plaintiff clai"s
the property by reason of being the only sister and nearest col l at eral rel at i ve of
t he deceased by vi r t ue of an af f i davi t of sel f . ad' udi cat i on e<ecut ed by her i n
1#$7 and had t he l and decl ared i n her na"e and pai d t he estate and inheritance
ta<es thereon. &ornelia Bplaintiff.appellantC, sister of @eli< Matabuena "aintains that the
donation "ade by @eli< to Petronila &ervantes Bdefendant.appelleeC was void because they
wer e l i vi ng wi t hout t he benef i t of "arri age B co""on l aw "ar ri ageC . 6hi s i s i n
pursuant to (rticle 1HH of &ivil &ode which provides 4
E:-#$ 1o!04o! 2-0E--! 03- /.o"/-/ 1"#4!@ 03- 9##4@- /355 2- :o41.
1n 7H !ove"ber 1#$,, the lower court upheld the validity of the donation as it was
"ade before &ervantesL "arriage to the donor. Hence this appeal.
+SSD?301! the ban on a donation between the spouses during a "arriage applies
to aco""on.law relationship
H?E/3 6he l ower court deci si on of !ove"ber 7H, 1#$, di s"i ssi ng t he
co"pl ai nt wi t h costs is -?A?-S?/. 6he ;uestioned donation is declared void, with
the rights of pl ai nt i f f and def endant as pr o i ndi vi s o B f or an undi vi ded
par t C . 6he cas e i s re"anded to the lower court for its appropriate disposition in
accordance with theabove opinion.
-(6+13+t is a principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is as
"uch a part of it as what is written. +f there is ever any occasion where the pri nci pl e
of st at ut or y const ruct i on t hat what i s wi t hi n t he spi ri t of t he l aw i s as "uch a
part of it as what is written, then such would be it. 1therwise the basic purpose
discernible in such codal provision would not be attained. ( 1#, &ourt of (ppeals decision
Buenaventura v. Bautista, interpreting a si"ilar provision of the old &ivil &ode says clearly
that if the policy of the law is Bin the language of the opinion of the then Fustice
F.B.E. -eyes of that &ourtC 4to prohibit donat i ons i n f avor of t he ot her consor t
and hi s descendant s because of f ear of undue and i"proper pressure and
influence upon the donor, a pre'udice deeply rooted in our ancient law then there is every
reason to apply the sa"e prohibitive policy to persons living together as husband and wife
without benefit of nuptials.
olitical ,aw 3 'ournals vs Enrolled *ill
Morales has served as captain in the police depart"ent of a city for at least three years but
does not possess a bachelorLs degree, is ;ualified for appoint"ent as chief of police. Morales
was the chief of detective bureau of the Manila Police /epart"ent and holds the ran2 of
lieutenant colonel. He began his career in 1#H as patrol"an and gradually rose to his present
position. Dpon the resignation of the for"er &hief , Morales was designated acting chief of
police of Manila and, at the sa"e ti"e, given a provisional appoint"ent to the sa"e position
by the "ayor of Manila. Subido approved the designation of the petitioner but re'ected his
appoint"ent for Mfailure to "eet the "ini"u" educational and civil service eligibility
re;uire"ents for the said position.N +nstead, the respondent certified other persons as ;ualified
for the post. Subido invo2ed Section 1> of the Police (ct of 1#$$, which Section reads3
MMini"u" ;ualification for appoint"ent as &hief of Police (gency. J !o person "ay be
appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelorLs degree fro" a recogni*ed
institution of learning and has served either in the (r"ed @orces of the Philippines or the
!ational Bureau of +nvestigation, or has served as chief of police with e<e"plary record, or has
served in the police depart"ent of any city with ran2 of captain or its e;uivalent therein for at
least three yearsG or !$ 34@3 /83oo5 @#1"0- E3o 3/ /-#:-1 / o;;48-# 4! 03- A#9-1
Fo#8-s for at least eight years with the ran2 of captain and9or higher.N
!owhere in the above provision is it provided that a person Mwho has served the police
depart"ent of a city 5N can be ;ualified for said office. Morales however argued that when the
said act was being deliberated upon, the approved version was actually the following3
R!o person "ay be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelorLs degree
and has served either in the (r"ed @orces of the Philippines or the !ational Bureau of
+nvestigation or police depart"ent of any city and has held the ran2 of captain or its e;uivalent
therein for at least three years or !$ 34@3 /83oo5 @#1"0- E3o 3/ /-#:-1 03- .o548-
1-.#09-!0 o; 840$ o# who has served as officer of the (r"ed @orces for at least ) years
with the ran2 of captain and9or higher.L
Morales argued that the above version was the one which was actually approved by &ongress
but when the bill e"erged fro" the conference co""ittee the only change "ade in the
provision was the insertion of the phrase Fo# 3/ /-#:-1 / 834-; o; .o548- E403 -B-9.5#$
#-8o#1.C Morales went on to support his case by producing copies of certified photostatic copy
of a "e"orandu" which according to hi" was signed by an e"ployee in the Senate bill
division, and can be found attached to the page proofs of the then bill being deliberated upon.
ISSUE: 0hether or not the S& "ust loo2 upon the history of the bill, thereby in;uiring upon the
'ournals, to loo2 searchingly into the "atter.
HELD: 6he enrolled (ct in the office of the legislative secretary of the President of the
Philippines shows that Section 1> is e<actly as it is in the statute as officially published in slip
for" by the Bureau of Printing. 6he S& cannot go behind the enrolled (ct to discover what
really happened. 6he respect due to the other branches of the Govern"ent de"ands that the
S& act upon the faith and credit of what the officers of the said branches attest to as the official
acts of their respective depart"ents. 1therwise the S& would be cast in the unenviable and
unwanted role of a sleuth trying to deter"ine what actually did happen in the labyrinth of
law"a2ing, with conse;uent i"pair"ent of the integrity of the legislative process. 6he S& is
not of course to be understood as holding that in all cases the 'ournals "ust yield to the
enrolled bill. 6o be sure there are certain "atters which the &onstitution e<pressly re;uires
"ust be entered on the 'ournal of each house. 6o what e<tent the validity of a legislative act
"ay be affected by a failure to have such "atters entered on the 'ournal, is a ;uestion which
the S& can decide upon but is not currently being confronted in the case at bar hence the S&
does not now decide. (ll the S& holds is that with respect to "atters not e<pressly re;uired to
be entered on the 'ournal, the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy.
C/- D4@-/0, P-o.5- :/. P"#4/49, No. L 74==5=7&1, J!"#$ 28, 1%80
@(&6S3 +nfor"ations were filed to 7$ individuals fro" Manila and Sa"ar, individually and
separately, before the &ourts of @irst +nstance of Manila and Sa"ar for illegal possession of
deadly weapon or violation of Presidential /ecree !o. # pursuant to Procla"ation !o. 1>)1
dated Sept 71 and 7H, 1#%H. 1n the "otion to ;uash by the accused, the three respondent
'udges3 Fudge Purisi"a and Fudge Macaren, both of &@+ of ManilaG and Fudge Polo of &@+ of
Sa"ar, issued in the respective cases filed before the" an order to ;uash or dis"iss the
infor"ations on a co""on ground J Eac2 of essential ele"ents to constitute an offense
penali*ed by P/ !o. #. 6he respondent 'udges stated that to constitute the said offense, two
ele"ents "ust be presentG B1C possession of any bladed, blunt or pointed weapon outside of
residence as stated in par HG B7C and intended to use it to co""it or abet subversion, rebellion,
etc as stated in the prea"ble of the said P/. 6he People, as petitioners, thru the Solicitor
General, contended that the prohibited acts need not be related to subversive activities and the
intent of the accused are irrelevant since its is a statutory offense and punishing the
possession of such deadly weapon is not only to eradicate subversive acts but also cri"inality
in general. 6he petitioners also argued that the prea"ble is not an essential part of an act and
cannot prevail over the te<t of the law itself.
+SSD?3 0hether or not the petitionersL argu"ents as to the intention and scope of P/ !o. # BHC
correct=
H?E/3 !1. 6he Supre"e &ourt says that the intention of P/ !o. # BHC is to penali*e the acts
which are those related to the desired result of Proc. !o. 1>)1 and Gen. 1rders !os. $ and %
which are to suppress those who co""it or abet lawlessness, rebellion, subversive acts and
the li2e. 6he prea"ble of P/ !o. # also clearly concurs to that, though the prea"ble is not a
part of the statute, it is the 2ey to deter"ine what is the intent and spirit of the decree and
deter"ine what acts fall within the purview of a penal statute.
Salvacion vs. &entral Ban2 of the Philippines, &hina Ban2ing &orporation
and Greg Bartelli y !orthcott
G.-. !o. #%7H (ugust 71, 1##%
6orres,Fr., F,3
@acts3
1n @ebruary .%, 1#)#, Greg Bartelli y !orthcott, an ("erican tourist, detained and
repeatedly raped Iaren Salvacion, a 17.year old the victi", in the apart"ent of the accused in
Ma2ati &ity. 6hat, on the th day of detention, Iaren was finally found by the police"en after a
neighbor heard her crying and screa"ing for help. 6he accused was i""ediately arrested
within the pre"ises of the building, and eventually brought to Ma2ati Municipal Fail.
(fter thorough investigation and "edical e<a"ination, the victi", as represented by her
parents, together with the @iscal filed cri"inal cases against Greg Bartelli y !orthcott for
Serious +llegal /etention and for @our BC counts of -ape. 6he petitioners also filed a separate
civil action for da"ages with preli"inary attach"ent against the accused that had several
dollar accounts in &1&1B(!I and &hina Ban2ing &orporation. 1n @ebruary 7, 1#)#, the
day there was a hearing for BartelliLs petition for bail the latter escaped fro" 'ail.
6he deputy sheriff served !otice of Garnish"ent on &hina Ban2ing &orporation but the
latter declined to furnish a copy as it invo2ed -.(. !o. 1>,. 6he sheriff again sent a letter
stating that the garnish"ent did not violate the ban2 secrecy law as it was legally "ade by
virtue of a court order but &hina Ban2ing &orporation invo2ed Section 11H of &entral Ban2
&ircular !o. #$>, that dollar accounts are e<e"pt fro" attach"ent, garnish"ent, or any other
order or process of any court, legislative body, govern"ent agency or any ad"inistrative body,
whatsoever. 6he &entral Ban2 sent a reply after a de"and fro" the court as2ing if the Section
11H of &entral Ban2 &ircular !o.#$> is absolute in nature of which it replied in affir"ative.
(fter the accused was declared in default, the court rendered a 'udg"ent in favor of the
petitioners based on the heinous acts of the accused and the grave effects on social, "oral
and psychological aspects on the part of the petitioners. &hina Ban2ing &orporation refused
the 0rit of ?<ecution of the court. 6husG
Petitioners file a Petition for -elief in the Supre"e &ourt.
+ssues3
0hether the dollar accounts of the (ccused is absolutely e<e"pt fro" attach"ent,
garnish"ent or any other order or process of any court=
Held3
0hile it is true that the protective cloa2 of confidentiality over foreign deposit accounts would
better encourage the inflow of foreign currency deposits, lending capacity of the govern"ent
and would help financial stability and the national develop"ent, what would be the relief of
so"eone clai"ing da"ages against a person with foreign deposit accounts= More so against
a person who heinously and feloniously co""itted an offense in the territory of the
Philippines= (s in this case, the accused dee"ed liable for the da"ages based of the heinous
acts according to the testi"onies of the victi" and the witnesses.
+t is the duty of the govern"ent to encourage foreign currency deposits and to co"ply by
giving confidentiality but in the correct argu"ent of the Solicitor General, foreign currency
deposits of a tourist or transient is not the one encouraged by P/ !os. 1>H and 1H>, on the
ground that said accounts is te"porary and only for a short period of ti"e.
6he application of the law depends on the e<tent of its 'ustice. +f we rule Section 11H of &entral
Ban2 &ircular !o.#$> which e<e"pts fro" attach"ent, garnish"ent, or any other order or
process of any court, legislative body, govern"ent agency or any ad"inistrative body
whatsoever, is applicable to foreign transient , in'ustice would result especially to a citi*en
aggrieved by a foreign guest li2e accused Greg Bartelli.
(rticle 1> of the !ew &ivil &ode provides that Min case of doubt in the interpretation or
application of laws, it is presu"ed that the law"a2ing body intended right and 'ustice to
prevailN. Si"ply stated, when the statute is a"biguous, this is one of those funda"ental
solutions that would respond to vehe"ent urge of conscience.
+t would be unthin2able that Section 11H of &B circular #$> would be used as a device by the
accused for wrongdoing, and in so doing, ac;uitting the guilty as the e<pense of the innocent.
6he situation calls for fairness against legal tyranny.
0e definitely cannot have both ways and rest in the belief that we have served the ends of
'ustice.
+! A+?0 0H?-?1@, the provisions of Section 11H of &B &ircular !o.#$> and P/ !o.17$,
insofar as it a"ends Section ) of -( $7$ are hereby held to be +!(PPE+&(BE? to this case
because of its peculiar circu"stances. -espondents are hereby -?SD+-?/ to &1MPEO with
the writ of e<ecution issued in &ivil &ase !o. )#.H71 -6& Ma2ati, and to -?E?(S? to
petitioners the dollar deposit of respondent Greg Bartelli y !othcott in such a"ount as would
satisfy the 'udg"ent.