G.R. No. 187587 & G.R. No. 187654; June 5, 2013
Case Parties/Title: NAGKAKAISANG MARALITA NG SITIO MASIGASIG, INC. (Petitioner in G.R. No. 187587 ) and WESTERN BICUTAN LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (Petitioner in G.R. No. 187654), vs. MILITARY SHRINE SERVICES – PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (Respondent).

FACTS

1. On July 12, 1957, President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 423, reserving parcels of land in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Rizal, and Pasay City for a military reservation (Fort Andres Bonifacio).
2. On May 28, 1967, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208, amending Proclamation No. 423 to exclude an area for the Libingan ng mga Bayani, administered by respondent MSS-PVAO.
3. On January 7, 1986, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, further amending Proclamation No. 423 to exclude barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan, and Signal Village and declare them open for disposition under Republic Act Nos. 274 and 730. At the bottom of the proclamation, President Marcos made a handwritten addendum: “P.S. This includes Western Bicutan (SGD.) Ferdinand E. Marcos.”
4. Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette on February 3, 1986, without the handwritten addendum.
5. On October 16, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 172, which reiterated Proclamation No. 2476 (as published) but specifically excluded Lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan and declared them open for disposition.
6. Informal settlers, including members of petitioner associations (NMSMI and WBLOAI), occupied portions of Fort Bonifacio, including areas in Western Bicutan.
7. On August 27, 1999, NMSMI filed a petition with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP), docketed as COSLAP Case No. 99-434, praying for the reclassification of the area they occupied (Lot 3 of Western Bicutan) as alienable and disposable pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476. WBLOAI filed a Petition-in-Intervention on September 1, 2000, seeking similar relief for Lot 7.
8. On September 1, 2006, COSLAP issued a Resolution granting the petition, ruling that the handwritten addendum was an integral part of Proclamation No. 2476 and that Proclamation No. 172 could not supersede it. Associate Commissioner Lina Aguilar-General dissented, emphasizing the necessity of publication.
9. MSS-PVAO’s motion for reconsideration was denied by COSLAP on January 24, 2007.
10. MSS-PVAO filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the COSLAP Resolutions on April 29, 2009, dismissing the petitions of NMSMI and WBLOAI.
11. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court via Petitions for Review under Rule 45.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the subject lots (Lots 3 and 7 of Western Bicutan) were not declared alienable and disposable by virtue of Proclamation No. 2476 because the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was not included in its publication in the Official Gazette.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petitions and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. Requirement of Publication: The Court held that publication in the Official Gazette is indispensable for a law, including presidential proclamations, to take effect, pursuant to Article 2 of the Civil Code and the doctrine established in Tañada v. Tuvera. The phrase “unless otherwise provided” refers only to the effectivity period, not to the dispensation of publication itself.
2. Status of the Handwritten Addendum: Since the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was not published in the Official Gazette, it did not become part of the law and had no force and effect. The published text of Proclamation No. 2476, which did not mention Western Bicutan, is the only valid and operative version.
3. Effect of Proclamation No. 172: The Court noted that Proclamation No. 172, issued by President Aquino, explicitly excluded only Lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan, implying that the rest of Western Bicutan remained part of the military reservation. This interpretation aligns with the principle that laws should be interpreted based on their clear and published text.
4. Role of the Judiciary: The Court emphasized that its duty is to interpret, not to legislate. It cannot supply missing terms or correct omissions in a law through judicial fiat. The remedy for petitioners lies in legislative action, not judicial interpretation.
5. COSLAP’s Authority: The Court implicitly affirmed that COSLAP, despite its broad powers, cannot override the fundamental requirement of publication or effectively amend a law by recognizing an unpublished provision.
Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed for lack of merit, and the status quo order was lifted.