INTRODUCTION

II. EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS (NCC 1-18) and HUMAN RELATIONS (NNC 19-36)
A. When law takes effect
NCC Art. 2
Revised Administrative Code (RAC), Secs. 18 to 24
Executive Order No. 200, Sec. 2
Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292),
Book VII, Chapter 2, Sec. 3

NCC Art. 2
● Publication in the Official Gazette
● Shall take effect 15 days after

RAC 18-24
● Publication in the Official Gazette or Newspaper of General Circulation unless otherwise provided. (18)
● Prospective in effect, unless the contrary is expressly provided
● The English text shall control in the interpretation of a law or administrative issuance unless specifically provided. (20)
● When a law which expressly repeals a prior law itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly
provided. (21)
● When a law which impliedly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the prior law shall thereby be revived, unless the repealing law
provides otherwise. (22)
● Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (23; NCC Art. 3)
● All legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature shall be published. (24)
(a) Executive and administrative issuances of general application
(b) Decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, or other courts of similar rank
of sufficient importance to be so published
(c) Documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law
(d) Documents or classes of documents as the President shall determine from time to time to have general
application or which he may authorize so to be published
(e) The publication of any law, resolution or other official documents in the Official Gazette shall be prima facie
evidence of its authority.
E.O. 200 (2)
● Publication of laws in Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation as a requirement of effectivity.
● The "Civil Code of the Philippines" and all other laws inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.

Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292), Book VII, Chapter 2, Sec. 3
● Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center 3 certified copies of every rule adopted by it.
● Those which are not filed within 3 months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of any sanction against any party or persons.
● The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, shall carry out the requirements under pain of disciplinary action.
● A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection.

Process on how the law takes effect:

1.) Republic Acts/Presidential Decree- Publication in the Official Gazette, shall take effect after fifteen days. (NCC Art 2)
2.) Admin Issuances- Filing with the UP Law Center and publication in the Official Gazette or newspapers of general circulation, shall take effect after 15
days. (RAC 18-24)
3.) Ordinances- public hearing and posting (Local Government Code)

Pesigan v. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174, April 30, 1984

People v. Veridiano, 132 SCRA 523, October 12, 1984

Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985

Facts: Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette
of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and
administrative orders. Petitioners contend that in order for these laws to be effective it must be published in the Official Gazette.
Doctrine: Laws should be published to give the general public adequate notice of various laws. Without such notice and publication, there would
be no basis for “ignorantia legis non excusat”. Publication of all presidential issuances of a public nature or general applicability is mandated by
law. Presidential decrees providing for fines, forfeitures or penalties fall within this category.
Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be
published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned.

MRCA v. CA, 180 SCRA 591, December 19, 1989

Yaokasin v. Commissioner, 180 SCRA 591, December 1989

Commission of Customs v. Hypermix

Petitioner issued CMO 27-2003, classifying wheat as food or feed grade. Respondent challenged it contending that it did not follow the mandate
of the Admin Code on public participation, prior notice, and publication or registration with the University of the Philippines Law Center. Petitioner
defensed that it was an admin rule, not a legislative rule so the mandate is not needed.

Held: It is clear that Respondent has a legal and substantive interest in the implementation of the subject regulation as it would be made to pay
7% tariff, instead of 3%. Thus, Petitioners should have applied the pertinent provisions of Book VII, Chapter 2 of the Admin Code (the required
publication).

Nagkakaisang Maralita v. Military Shrine Services, GR. 187587, June 5, 2013

PASEI v. Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 101279, August 06, 1992

PASEI, filed this petition for prohibition to annul DOLE and POEA circulars and to prohibit their implementation on the ground that the requirements of publication
and filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register were not complied with.

SC: For lack of proper publication, the administrative circulars in question may not be enforced and implemented.

Acaac v. Azcuna Jr., G.R. No. 187378, September 30, 2013

Facts: Petitioner is a non-governmental organization engaged in the protection and conservation of ecology, tourism, and livelihood projects which built some
cottages rented out to the public and became the source of livelihood of its beneficiaries. Respondents issued Notices of Illegal Construction against petitioner for its
failure to apply for a building permit prior to the construction of its buildings in violation of the Building Code ordering it to stop all illegal building activities. A municipal
ordinance was adopted which prohibited (a) the entry of any entity, association, corporation or organization inside the sanctuaries; and (b) the construction of any
structures, permanent or temporary, on the premises, except if authorized by the local government.

Held: Sec. 56(d) of the Local Government Code provides: If no action has been taken by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan within thirty (30) days after submission of such
an ordinance or resolution, the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid.
Par. (d) should be read in conjunction with par. (c), in order to arrive at the meaning of the disputed word, "action." This construction would be more in consonance
with the rule of statutory construction that the parts of a statute must be read together in such a manner as to give effect to all of them and that such parts shall
not be construed as contradicting each other. Laws are given a reasonable construction such that apparently conflicting provisions are allowed to stand and given
effect by reconciling them, reference being had to the moving spirit behind the enactment of the statute.

B. Ignorance of the law

NCC Art. 3 Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

Kasilag v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 46623, December 7, 1939

Facts: Kasilag and Rodriguez entered into a contract of loan to which has an accompanying accessory of mortgage. The executed accessory
contract involved the improvements on a piece of land, the land having been acquired by means of homestead. Petitioner for his part accepted
the contract of mortgage. Believing that there are no violations to the prohibitions in the alienation of lands, petitioner, acting in good faith took
possession of the land. To wit, the petitioner has no knowledge that the enjoyment of the fruits of the land is an element of the credit transaction
of Antichresis.

Held: NCC. Art. 3 provides, “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.” In the case at bar, Kasilag was found by the SC
as a possessor of the land in good faith. Sec. 433 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, “"Every person who is unaware of any flaw in his
title, or in the manner of its acquisition, by which it is invalidated, shall be deemed a possessor in good faith"; and provides further, that
"Possessors aware of such flaw are deemed possessors in bad faith".

Elegado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-68385, May 12, 1989

Facts: Warren Taylor Graham, formerly resident in the Philippines, died in Orgen, USA. His son Ward filed an estate tax return. The CIR assessed the descedant’s
estate, but the assessment was protested by a law firm which was denied. Elegado as an ancillary administrator filed a second estate tax return. The petitioner filed
a motion for the allowance of the basic estate tax of P96,509.35. He said that this liability had not yet been paid although the assessment had long become final and
executory. Petitioner was denied contending that the first assessment is not binding on him because it was based on a return filed for by lawyers.
The Supreme Court held that Elegado’s contention is flimsy. Elegado cannot be serious when he argues that the first assessment was invalid because the foreign
lawyers who filed the return on which it was based were not familiar with our tax laws and procedure. If our own lawyers and taxpayers cannot claim similar
preferences, it follows that foreigners cannot be any less bound by laws in our country.
Doctrine: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse (ignorantia legis non excusat).

C. Retroactivity of laws
NCC Art. 4, cf. NCC Arts. 2252 – 2269; Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 22; Family Code (FC) Art. 256

Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. (NCC Art 4)

RULES ON RETROACTIVITY:
1. No retroactive effect with the changes made and new provisions and rules which may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights
in accordance with the old legislation.
2. The Old Code/laws shall govern rights from acts done or events which took place under their regime even though this Code may
regulate them in a different manner or may not recognize them.
NOTE: If a right is declared for the first time in this Code, it shall be effective at once even though the act or event may
have been done or may have occurred under prior legislation, provided that it is not prejudicial.
3. No vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others.
4. The former laws shall regulate acts and contracts with a condition or period, which were executed or entered into before the
effectivity of this Code, even though the condition or period may still be pending at the time this body of laws goes into effect.
5. Acts and contracts that are valid under the regime of the old laws shall continue to be fully operative subject to certain limitations.
But the revocation or modification of these acts and contracts after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code, shall be subject
to the provisions of this new body of laws.
6. Provisions with civil sanctions or penalties which were not penalized by former laws, are not applicable to those executed which
are condemned by this Code. Less severe sanction shall be applied, if also punished by the Old Code. In a continuous or repeated
act or omission before the beginning of the effectivity of this Code and subsists after this Code becomes operative, the sanction or
penalty prescribed in this Code shall be applied, even though the previous laws may not have provided any sanction or penalty
therefor.
7. Actions and rights which came into being but were not exercised before the effectivity of this Code, shall remain in full force in
conformity with the old legislation; but their exercise, duration and the procedure to enforce them shall be regulated by this Code
and by the Rules of Court. If the exercise of the right or of the action was commenced under the old laws, but is pending on the
date this Code takes effect, and the procedure was different from that established in this new body of laws, the parties concerned
may choose which method or course to pursue.
8. The capacity of a married woman to execute acts and contracts is governed by this Code, even if her marriage was celebrated
under the former laws.
9. The voluntary recognition of a natural child shall take place according to this Code, even if the child was born before the effectivity
of this body of laws.
10. The status and rights of natural children by legal fiction illegitimate children shall also be acquired by children born before the
effectivity of this Code.
11. The right of retention of real or personal property arising after this Code becomes effective, includes those things which came into
the creditor's possession before said date.
12. Suits between members of the same family which are pending at the time this Code shall be suspended. The court may determine
if possible, a reconciliation.

Laws that have Prospective and Retroactive effect:

1. Article 315, whereby a descendant cannot be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and ascendants
2. Articles 101 and 88, providing against collusion in cases of legal separation and annulment of marriage
3. Articles 283, 284, and 289, concerning the proof of illegitimate filiation;
4. Article 838, authorizing the probate of a will on petition of the testator himself;
5. Articles 1359 to 1369, relative to the reformation of instruments
6. Articles 476 to 481, regulating actions to quiet title;
7. Articles 2029 to 2031, which are designed to promote compromises.

Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect:

1. favor the persons guilty of a felony
2. not a habitual criminal
 3. Although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

Uson v. Del Rosario, 92 Phil. 530

Puzon v. Abellara, 169 SCRA 789, January 31, 1989

Acosta v. Plan, 169 SCRA 591, January 30 1989

MRCA v. CA, supra

Sps. Dacudao v. Gonzales, GR No. 188056

Simon v. Chan, G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011

Rules of Court, even if not yet in effect when Chan commenced Civil Case No. 915- 00 on August 3, 2000, are nonetheless applicable. It is axiomatic that the retroactive
application of procedural laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable. The reason is simply
that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws. Any new rules may validly be made to apply to cases pending at the time of their
promulgation, considering that no party to an action has a vested right in the rules of procedure, except that in criminal cases.

Francisco vs CA
Teresita Francisco, the petitioner, is the legal wife of Eusebio Francisco by second marriage (1962). Francisco claims that during their marriage, she and Eusebio have
acquired properties. And upon the invalidation of Eusebio because of tuberculosis, heart disease, and cancer, he signed a general power of attorney to authorize
Conchita (child of Eusebio in the first marriage) to administer the properties. Francisco filed a suit for damages and for annulment of said general power of attorney;
and to be declared as administratrix of the properties in dispute. The contention is the applicability of Art. 160 and 158 of the NCC, because it has been repealed by
Art. 254 of the FC.

Held: Although it is true that Art. 254 of the FC repeals Art 160 and 158 of the NCC; SC cannot invoke the new law in this case without impairing prior vested rights.
Art. 160 of the NCC provides that “all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to
the husband or to the wife”.

CF: Pesca v. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001

Facts: Lorna and Zosimo got married in 1975, their union brought up 4 children, only during their marriage did Zosimo show signs of his irresponsibility and habitual
drinking. Often beating Lorna and their children up and once even tried to threaten to kill her with a loaded shotgun. In 1992 Lorna took her children to her sister’s
place and stayed there for 2 months when she forgave her husband, which only made things worse when her husband assaulted her in front of their children. She
filed for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity of Zosimo, the RTC ruled against Zosimo who brought it up to the appellate
court which overturned the lower court’s decision.

Held: It is in Santos v. Court of Appeals and Molina when the Court has given life to the term psychological incapacity and Molina provided procedural Guidelines to
assist the courts. The wife argued that Santos and Molina should not have retroactive application as the guidelines are merely advisory and not mandatory in nature.
The Court held that the doctrine of stare decisis ordained in Art. 8 of the Civil Code applies in the case at bar. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall
form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The Court held that the interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes the contemporaneous
legislative intent. It is only when a different view is adopted that the new doctrine may be applied prospectively in favor of the parties who relied on the old doctrine.

David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113 March 18, 2015

Facts: In 1974, petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon retirement, petitioner returned to the Philippines and
purchased a property. In 2004, petitioner found out that the purchased property is a public land and part of salvage zone. Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease
Application over the subject land with DENR and indicated that he is Filipino. Private respondent opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, a Canadian
citizen, is disqualified to own land. Meanwhile, petitioner reacquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of R.A. 9225 issued by the Consulate General of the
Philippines (Toronto). Petitioner then claimed that, by legal fiction, he was already deemed not to have lost his Philippine Citizenship upon reacquisition of the same
under R.A. 9225.

Doctrine: R.A. 9225 makes a distinction between those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before and after the effectivity of the said act. Only those
who acquire foreign citizenship after R.A. 9225 took effect are considered to have retained their natural-born status.

D. Acts Executed Against Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws

NCC Art. 5 with NCC Art. 17 (3)

NCC 5: Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their
validity.
NCC 17 (3): Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have, for their object, public order, public policy and
good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country.