Applications of Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit in our legal system:

1. General rule is that jurisdiction continues until the termination of the case and
is not affected by new legislation on the matter, the rule does not obtain where
the new law provides otherwise, or where said law is intended to apply to
actions pending before its enactment.1
In the language of an American Supreme Court decision: 'The actual
existence of a statute, prior to such a determination [of unconstitutionality], is
an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored.
The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of
the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various
aspects, — with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and
particular conduct, private and official (Chicot County Drainage Dist. v.
Baxter States Bank, 308 US 371, 374 [1940]). This language has been quoted
with approval in a resolution in Araneta v. Hill (93 Phil. 1002 [1953]) and the
decision in Manila Motor Co. Inc. v. Flores (99 Phil. 738 [1956]). An even
more recent instance is the opinion of Justice Zaldivar speaking for the Court
in Fernandez v. Cuerva and Co. (L-21114, Nov. 28, 1967, 21 SCRA 1095).2
2. There is a new doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court overturning an
existing doctrine is to be applied prospectively, and not to parties relying on
the old doctrine and acting on the faith thereof.3
In the cases Pesca v. Pesca4, and in Antonio v. Reyes5, the Court
explained that 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

1 (Philippine National Bank Vs.Tejano, 2009)

2 (Albino S. Co Vs. Court of Appeals, 1993)
3 (People of the Philippines Vs. Jose Jabinal, 1974)
44
Pesca v. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001
5
Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. NO. 155800, March 10, 2006
 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.”
3. A statute continues to be in force with regard to all rights that had accrued
prior to its amendment.6

6 Lagardo v. Masaganda, et al., L-17624, June 30,1962