Stat Con Cases
CASE 1: Regalado v. Yulo
[G.R. No. 42935. February 15, 1935.]
FACTS
1. Act 3899 only mentioned that age limit of
65 years for judges of CFI and Justice of the
Peace of Court will apply to those who
turned 65 on or before the enactment of
the Code which was in 1931.
2. Regalado turned 65 in 1934. He argued that
he is no longer covered by the provision of
the Act.
ISSUE:
Should Regalado be reinstated?
RULING:
Yes. Regalado was reinstated as judge of
the Justice of the Peace of Albay.
The law is clear that only those judges who
reached 65 years of age on or before November 16,
1931 should cease to hold office. Petitioner became
65 in 1934. Therefore, the Act does not apply to him.
Judiciary only interprets the law. It does not
modify it, else it would be tantamount to judicial
legislation, an ultra vires act.
*Justice of the Peace Court – MTC
Case 2: Wise & Co. v Meer
[G.R. No. 48231. June 30, 1947.]
FACTS
1. Wise & Co. filed a case against the Internal
Revenue Commissioner who charged the
company of taxes on its profits realized
from its liquidated stocks as stockholder of
Manila Wine.
2. Wise & Co. contends that the same should
no longer be taxable under the Philippine
law since the said profits were realized
abroad.
3. Lower courts ruled in favor of the
Commissioner, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners should pay
the assessed tax
RULING:
Yes, the petitioner should pay the taxes.
Based on American jurisprudence, amounts
distributed in the liquidation of a corporation shall
be treated as payments in exchange for the stock or
share, and any gain or profit realized thereby shall
be taxed.
Stat con rule: judicial construction of
statutes adopted in the jurisdiction are authoritative
in the interpretation of local laws. In this case, the
US jurisprudence, having been based on a law which
the Philippines adopted, is authoritative in the case.
Page 1 of 2
CASE 3: Tanada v Tuvera
(GR No. L-63915; December 29, 1986)
FACTS
1. This is a motion for clarification of the 1985
ruling. It aims to clarify, inter alia, whether
the Official Gazette should be the only
means to publish laws given its erratic
releases.
2. Petitioners invoke substantive due process
in arguing that people should be notified of
published laws hence it must also include
newspapers of general circulations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not publication of laws can be
made on newspapers other than the Official
Gazette
RULING:
No. Art. 2 of the Civil Code clearly states
that the publication will be made on the Official
Gazette. The Court’s duty is to interpret the law, not
modify it. Statutory construction does not involve
adding or modifying a law which would be
tantamount to judicial legislation.
CASE 4: Daoang v Municipal Judge
[G.R. No. L-34568. March 28, 1988.]
FACTS:
1. During this time, the CC prevails over
adoption and Art. 335 provides that a
person with a legitimate, legitimated, or
acknowledged child cannot adopt.
2. Adopters in this case have a grandchild.
3. An adoption was granted to them.
ISSUE:
Can a person with grandchildren adopt?
RULING:
Yes.
Stat con rule 1: inclusion unius est exclusio
alterus – the explicit mention of one is the exclusion
of another. The rule only includes children, not
grandchildren.
Stat con rule 2: verba legis - if the statute is
clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given
its literal meaning. Only statutes with ambiguous or
doubtful meaning may be subject of statutory
construction.
CASE 5: Lapid v CA
[G.R. No. 142261. June 29, 2000.]
FACTS:
1. Under the Ombudsman Act, Lapid et. al
were found guilty and are ordered to be
suspended for 1 year due to misconduct in
relation to illegal quarrying.
2. Respondents appealed the decision.
3. Solicitor General contends that judgments
by administrative bodies are final and
executory even during the pendency of an
appeal.
 Stat Con Cases
ISSUE:
Should the decision be final pending an
appeal?
RULING:
No.
Stat con Rule 1: inclusio unius est exclusion
alterus. Only decisions by the CSC pursuant to the
Administrative Code and by the President under the
LGC are final and executory despite pendency of an
appeal. Here, Lapid et. al was convicted under the
Ombudsman Act which is not enumerated under
Sec. 12, Rule 43 of ROC. Hence, the rule should be
interpreted that an appeal will not stay a judgment,
unless the law provides otherwise.
Rule 2: It is a principle in statutory
construction that where there are two statutes that
apply to a particular case, that which was specially
designed for the said case must prevail over the
other.
CASE 6: City of Baguio v Marcos
[G.R. No. L-26100. February 28, 1969.]
FACTS:
1. Petitioners are Igorots who explained that
their predecessors were illiterate hence
their failure to file an opposition to a
cadastral proceeding within the period
prescribed.
ISSUE:
May RA 931 be invoked by the petitioners
to pursue their claim?
RULING:
Yes. In statutory construction, the title of
an act determines the intent of the legislature given
that 2 of the 3 readings required to pass a bill into
law only require the reading of the title, not the
entire text.
The title of RA 931 is “AN ACT TO
AUTHORIZE THE FILING IN THE PROPER COURT,
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, OF CERTAIN
CLAIMS OF TITLE TO PARCELS OF LAND THAT HAVE
BEEN DECLARED PUBLIC LAND,
BY VIRTUE OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS RENDERED
WITHIN THE FORTY YEARS NEXT PRECEDING THE
APPROVAL OF THIS ACT."
The title now under scrutiny possesses the
strength of clarity and positiveness. It
recites that it authorizes court proceedings of claims
to parcels of land declared public
land "by virtue of judicial decisions rendered within
the forty years next preceding the
approval of this Act." That title is written in bold
which means that it is the legislature speaking.
R.A. 931 is a piece of remedial legislation. In
essence, it provides a mode of relief to landowners
who, before the Act, had no legal means of
perfecting their titles.
Page 2 of 2
NOTES:
 Reopening petition for a land (an act by the
govt to declare a land public) will not
prosper if the govt has already leased the
property. In this case, the petitioners are
lessees of the land, hence they have legal
interest to intervene.
 Petitioners only needed to show that they
are legitimate lessees, then their lease will
continue.
 Power of cadastral court is not tainted by
want of publication.
 Cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem
(against a real right) initiated by the filing of
a petition for registration of a land by the
government and any person claiming
ownership thereto is compelled to go to
court to make known his claim.
CASE 7: Ebarle v Sucaldito
[G.R. No. L-33628. December 29, 1987.]
FACTS
1. Ebarle et. al is seeking injunctive relief after
having been convicted of graft and other
felony charges.
2. Petitioners contend that the appellees did
not follow what was stipulated under EO
264, which outline the procedure by which
complaints against govt officials and
employees with the commission of
irregularities.
ISSUE:
Whether or not EO 264 also applies to
criminal cases, not just admin cases
RULING
No. It is plain from the very wording of the
Order that it has exclusive application to
administrative, not criminal complaints. The very
title speaks of "COMMISSION OF IRREGULARITIES."
There is no mention, not even by implication, of
criminal "offenses," that is to say, "crimes."
The Executive Order in question makes
specific reference to "erring officials or employees ...
removed or otherwise vindicated. If it were intended
to apply to criminal prosecutions, it would have
employed such technical terms as "accused",
"convicted," or "acquitted." While this is not
necessarily a controlling parameter for all cases, it is
here material in construing the intent of the
measure.
RULE: construing legislative intent through wordings
used in the statute