Effectivity Lara vs. Del Rosario G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954 Facts

EFFECTIVITY the complaint on September 4, 1950, that is to say,
after the repeal of Article 302 which they invoke.

LARA vs. DEL ROSARIO Moreover, said Article 302 of the Code of
G.R. No. L-6339 Commerce, assuming that it were still in force speaks
April 20, 1954 of “salary corresponding to said month.” commonly
known as “mesada.” If the plaintiffs herein had no
Facts: fixed salary either by the day, week, or month, then
In 1950 defendant Petronilo Del Rosario, Jr., computation of the month’s salary payable would be
owner of twenty-five taxi cabs or cars, operated a taxi impossible. Article 302 refers to employees receiving
business under the name of “Waval Taxi.” He a fixed salary.
employed among others three mechanics and 49
chauffeurs or drivers, the latter having worked for
periods ranging from 2 to 37 months. On September
4, 1950, without giving said mechanics and
chauffeurs 30 days advance notice, Del Rosario sold
his 25 units or cabs to La Mallorca, a transportation
company, as a result of which, according to the
mechanics and chauffeurs above-mentioned they lost
their jobs because the La Mallorca failed to continue
them in their employment. They brought this action
against Del Rosario to recover compensation for
overtime work rendered beyond eight hours and on
Sundays and legal holidays, and one month salary
(mesada) provided for in article 302 of the Code of
Commerce because the failure of their former
employer to give them one month notices.
Subsequently, the three mechanics unconditionally
withdrew their claims. So only the 49 drivers
remained as plaintiffs.
Issue:
Whether or not the claim of the plaintiffs-
appellants for overtime compensation under the
Eight-Hour Labor Law is valid.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the month pay
(mesada) under article 302 of the Code of Commerce,
article 2270 of the new Civil Code (Republic Act
386) appears to have repealed said Article 302 when
it repealed the provisions of the Code of Commerce
governing Agency. This repeal took place on August
30, 1950, when the new Civil Code went into effect,
that is, one year after its publication in the Official
Gazette. The alleged termination of services of the
plaintiffs by the defendant took place according to
SPOUSES FORTUNA v. REPUBLIC OF THE They contend that the applicable law is application and private laws, shall be published as a
PHILIPPINES [G.R. No. 173423, March 05, 2014] Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the condition for their effectivity, which shall begin
Public Land Act (PLA), as amended by Republic Act fifteen days after publication unless a different
(RA) No. 1942. RA No. 1942 amended the PLA by effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.”
requiring 30 years of open, continuous, exclusive, Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 should be
SPOUSES FORTUNA v. REPUBLIC OF THE and notorious possession to acquire imperfect title understood to mean that the decree took effect only
PHILIPPINES over an agricultural land of the public domain. This upon its publication, or on May 9, 1977. This,
[G.R. No. 173423, March 05, 2014] 30-year period, however, was removed by PD No. therefore, moves the cut-off date for applications for
1073 and instead required that the possession should judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. be since June 12, 1945. The amendment introduced under Section 48(b) of the PLA to May 8, 1947. In
Ladiao (22 Sept 2015) by PD No. 1073 was carried in Section 14(1) of the other words, applicants must prove that they have
PRD. been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
Topic: Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
Incomplete Titles – Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, The spouses Fortuna point out that PD No. public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition
C.A. 141 1073 was issued on January 25, 1977 and published of ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since
FACTS: on May 9, 1977; and the PRD was issued on June 11, May 8, 1947.
In December 1994, the spouses Fortuna filed 1978 and published on January 2, 1979. On the basis
an application for registration of a 2,597-square of the Court’s ruling in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, The spouses Fortuna were unable to prove
meter land identified as Lot No. 4457, situated in Bo. etc., et al., they allege that PD No. 1073 and the PRD that they possessed Lot No. 4457 since May 8, 1947.
Canaoay, San Fernando, La Union. The application should be deemed effective only on May 24, 1977
was filed with the RTC and docketed as LRC No. and January 17, 1979, respectively. By these dates, Even if the Court assumes that Lot No. 4457
2372. they claim to have already satisfied the 30-year is an alienable and disposable agricultural land of the
requirement under the RA No. 1942 amendment public domain, the spouses Fortuna’s application for
The spouses Fortuna claimed that they, because Pastora’s possession dates back, at the latest, registration of title would still not prosper for failure
through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, to 1947. to sufficiently prove that they possessed the land
have been in quiet, peaceful, adverse and since May 8, 1947.
uninterrupted possession of Lot No. 4457 for more ISSUE:
than 50 years, and submitted as evidence the lot’s Whether or not Section 48(b) of
survey plan, technical description, and certificate of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act
assessment. (PLA), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942
is applicable for registration of a 2,597-square meter
In its Decision dated May 7, 2001, the RTC land identified as Lot No. 4457 in favor of the
granted the application for registration in favor of the spouses Fortuna.
spouses Fortuna.
HELD:
In its decision dated May 16, 2005, the CA NO. the petition is DENIED. The decision
reversed and set aside the RTC decision. Although it of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED insofar as
found that the spouses Fortuna were able to establish these dismissed the spouses Antonio and Erlinda
the alienable and disposable nature of the land, they Fortuna’s application of registration of title.
failed to show that they complied with the length of
possession that the law requires, i.e., since June 12, Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states
1945. that “[the] Decree shall take effect upon its
promulgation,” the Court has declared in Tañada, et
Through the present petition, the spouses al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al. that the publication of
Fortuna seek a review of the CA rulings. laws is an indispensable requirement for its
effectivity. “[A]ll statutes, including those of local

Effectivity Lara vs. Del Rosario G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effectivity Lara vs. Del Rosario G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECTIVITY the complaint on September 4, 1950, that is to say,

after the repeal of Article 302 which they invoke.

You might also like