Civil Law Review EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF THE LAWS PASEI vs Torres (G.R. No.

101279 August 6, 1992) On Memorandum Circulars (Issued by the POEA) -> Publication Requirement; Reiterating Tanada vs Tuvera (Administrative rules and regulations) - must be published if their purpose is to implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. (Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature) - regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency - letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. -> Need not be published Republic vs Extelcom (G.R. No. 147096 January 15, 2002) Memorandum Circulars (Issued by the NTC) Application of 1987 Rules vs 1993 Rules (used in granting provisional Authority in CAB) - absence of publication indicate that the 1993 Revised Rules have not taken effect at the time of the grant of the provisional authority to Bayantel. - 1987 Rules Apply - Reiterated Tanada vs Tuvera Republic vs Pilipinas Shell (G.R. No. 173918) Memorandum Circular imposing surcharge (from the DOE) (Registration with the Office of the NationaL Administrative Register not complied with) - UMOF Circular No. 1-85, as amended, is one of those issuances which should be published before it becomes effective since it is intended to enforce Presidential Decree No. 1956. - should also comply with the filing with the ONAR in the University of the Philippines Law Center - These requirements of publication and filing were put in place as safeguards against abuses on the part of lawmakers and as guarantees to the constitutional right to due process and to information on matters of public concern -> require strict compliance. VESTED RIGHTS; SUBSTANTIVE & PROCEDURAL LAWS; RETROACTIVE APPLICATION; STATUTORY RULES VS EQUITY PRINCIPLES Duenas vs Santos (G.R. No. 149417 June 4, 2004)

(the retroactivity of P.D. No. 957 - Subdiv & Condominium Buyers Decree", as amended by P.D. No. 1216 ->Open Space ) (Eugenio does not apply; where retroactivity as to PD 957 was given effect) - there was a failure to develop the subdivision; although the said PD provides for no retroactive application, the intent of the law of being to protect the helpless citizens from the machinations of subdivision and condominium sellers - non-payment of amortizations was justified (P.D. No. 957 cannot be applied retroactively) - no express provision providing for its retroactive application Bernabe vs Alejo [G.R. No. 140500. January 21, 2002] (action for recognition; given under Article 285 of the Civil Code; question of vested right before passage of Family Code) (Vested Right) - a right that is absolute, complete and unconditional - the exercise of which no obstacle exists and not dependent upon a contingency - as a general rule, no vested right may arise from procedural laws (Substantive vs Procedural) - Substantive law -> creates, defines and regulates rights which give rise to a cause of action - remedial law -> prescribes the method of enforcing rights (test for determining whether a rule is procedural or substantive) - If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter - if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure. (Article 285 of the Civil Code is a substantive Law) - it gives Adrian the right to file his petition for recognition within four years from attaining majority age - The Family Code cannot impair or take Adrians right to file an action for recognition, because that right had already vested prior to its enactment. (Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals; not applicable) - plaintiff therein sought recognition as an illegitimate child when he was no longer a minor. Republic vs Miller [G.R. No. 125932. April 21, 1999] (Aliens vis a vis adoption of a Filipino Child)

- petition for adoption was filed on July 29, 1988; Child and Youth Welfare Code -> which allowed aliens to adopt. - prohibition under the Family Code -> August 3, 1988 (Acquisition of Vested Right) - Alien qulaified to adopt while the C&YWC was in force - cant be affected by a subsequent enactment (right has become vested at the time of filing of the petition for adoption) - governed by the law then in force. - Vested rights -> concept of present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice should be protected against arbitrary State action - includes not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand, but also an exemption from new obligations created after the right has vested Atienza vs Brilliantes March 29, 1995) (A.M. No. MTJ-92-706

Ablaza vs Republic

(G.R. No. 158298 August 11, 2010)

(A.M.) No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Decla of Abso Nulty of Void Ms and Anlmnt of Voidable Ms); March 15, 2003. - limitation; may be filed only by the husband or wife. - extends only to marriages covered by the FC; August 3, 1988 - as a procedural rule; confined only to proceedings commenced after March 15, 2003. (marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila; December 26, 1949) - applicable law -> old Civil Code; law in effect; celebration of the marriage. - A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had absolutely no application to the petitioner (brother of deceased who filed a declaration of abso nullty of M). (brother of the late Cresenciano; surviving heir) - he has a material interest in the estate of Cresenciano that will be adversely affected by any judgment in the suit. - a brother like the petitioner, albeit not a compulsory heir under the laws of succession, has the right to succeed to the estate of a deceased brother STARE DECISIS Ting vs Velez Ting (G.R. No. 166562 March 31, 2009) (stare decisis) - adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules established by this Court in its final decisions. - based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. (a bar to relitigate the same issues; rationale) - economy and stability - entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code. (Two strains of stare decisis) - (vertical stare decisis) deals with the duty of lower courts to apply the decisions of the higher courts to cases involving the same facts - (horizontal stare decisis) requires that high courts must follow its own precedents. (2 kinds of horizontal stare decisis) - (Constitutional stare decisis) involves judicial interpretations of the Constitution -> The distinction is important for courts enjoy more flexibility in refusing to apply stare decisis in constitutional litigations. - (statutory stare decisis) involves interpretations of statutes. -> the application of stare decisis on judicial interpretation of statutes is more inflexible (Reasons to follow stare decisis ) - egitimizes judicial institutions

(Factual Circs) - 1st marriage; 1965; Civil Code of the Philippines - 2nd marriage; 1991; Family Code. (Article 40; applicability) - applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage. (Given Retro effect) - Article 40 -> a rule of procedure. - Respondent has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case. (procedural statutes may affect the litigants' rights) - may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions) - retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected - as a general rule no vested right may arise from procedural laws Ty vs CA ([G.R. No. 127406. November 27, 2000]) (Family Code Art 40 not Given Retro Active Effect) - Petitioner and her children acquired vested rights (Second marriage valid) - second marriage took place and all the children were born before the promulgation of Wiegel and the effectivity of the Family Code - no need for a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence at that time.

- promotes judicial economy - it allows for predictability. (When courts refurse to follow stare decisis) - application perpetuates illegitimate and unconstitutional holdings - cannot accommodate changing social and political understandings - leaves the power to overturn bad constitutional law solely in the hands of Congress - activist judges can dictate the policy for future courts while judges that respect stare decisis are stuck agreeing with them. (Guidelines in Santos and Molina) - the interpretation or construction of a law by courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date the statute is enacted. - It is only when a prior ruling of this Court is overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith, in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of "lex prospicit, non respicit."