THE CIVIL CODE
RA. No. 386
Preliminary Title
Chapter 1
Effect and Application of Laws
Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless
the contrary is provided.
Concept of retroactive or retrospective law
A
law is said to be retroactive or retrospective when it affects acts, relations,
transactions or obligations that occurred or were incurred prior to the
effectivity of such law. In general, laws are construed against retroactivity
because doing so might result to arbitrariness, impairment of obligations of
contract, denial of substantive rights and negation of vested rights. However, a
law is not considered retroactive when its operation necessarily involves factual
consideration of an event prior to its effectivity. Neither a law is considered
retroactive when it provides for affected persons to comply before they incur
penalties under such law.
General Rule
The
general rule is that laws are prospective and not retroactive (lex
prospicit, non respicit). Transactions, obligations or cases under the
purview of a law are governed by such law only when it starts to become
effective and not before. For example, the increase in wages of workers are
within the purview of the Minimum Wage Law. When an increase in wages is
mandated in accordance to the aforementioned law, then workers are only
entitled to receive increased wages after the effectivity of the law. The
amended law does not entitle them to recover from their employers the difference
in their wages before and after the effectivity of the law as the law is
applied prospectively.
Statutes
imposing penalties and liabilities, including usury laws are prospective. Doctrinal
rulings of the Supreme Court are also prospectively applied.
In Co vs.
CA (G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993), the Supreme Court has provided quite a long
list of cases in which the principle of prospectivity of statutes and doctrinal
rulings have been applied.
Exceptions to the General Rule
(Mnemonic
Device: PIERCER)
“A
statute is penal when it imposes punishment for an offense committed against
the State.” According to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, an accused or a
convict can avail of the retroactive application of a penal law that is
favorable to him/her as long as he/she is not a habitual delinquent or a
recidivist. As stated in Article 62 paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code “a
person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten
years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious
or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.” On the other hand,
Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code, defines a recidivist as “one who, at the
time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title” of the Revised Penal
Code. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code “may be given retroactive effect
during three possible stages of a criminal prosecution: (a) when the crime has
been committed and the prosecution begins; (b) when sentence has been passed
but the service has not begun; and (c) when the sentence is being carried out.”
(People v. Patalin, et al., G.R. No. 125539 July 27, 1999)
In
People v. Patalin, the accused-appellants were found guilty of robbery with
rape which was punishable by death when the crime was committed. While their case
was being heard and has not reached finality, the 1987 Constitution took
effect, which contains a self-executory provision that effectively abolished
the death penalty and commuted the death sentence to reclusion perpetua under
Section 19 Article III. However, death penalty was already imposed to the
accused-appellants by a lower court. When the case was appealed, the Supreme
Court nullify this penalty as a result of the retroactive application of Section
19 Article III, in full consideration of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
Reclusion perpetua were instead meted to the accused-appellants.
However,
the case of the accused-appellants was again overtaken by another pertinent
legislation, Republic Act No. 7659, which re-imposed the penalty, thereby
creating a question again of imposing the death penalty to the accused-appellants.
The Supreme Court held that a vested right, the right to suffer the lower
penalty of reclusion perpetua has already accrued upon the accused-appellants by
virtue of the retroactive application of Section 19 Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Since, Republic Act No. 7659 was not favorable to accused-appellants, it was not
applied to their case retroactively, again in full consideration of Article 22
of the Revised Penal Code.
In
short, when a penal law benefits the accused, it is retroactive; otherwise, it
is prospective.
“An administrative rule
interpretive of a statute, and not declarative of certain rights and
corresponding obligations, is given retroactive effect as of the date of the
effectivity of the statute.” An administrative
rule (RR 12-99) interpretative
of Republic Act No. 8424 issued by BIR on September 6, 1999, was deemed
to retroact to January 1, 1998, the date when Republic Act No. 8424 took effect (G.R. No. 197515 July 2, 2014).
As cited in Primicias vs Ocampo (G.R. No. L-6120 June 30, 1953), remedial law is one “which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress for their invasions.”
Definition of remedial laws are found in Tan, Jr vs. CA (G.R. No. 136368 January 16, 2002) and reads as follow: “as adjective laws which prescribe rules and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion; they refer to rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. They include rules of pleadings, practice and evidence. As applied to criminal law, they provide or regulate the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished.”
In Mun. Gov't. of Caron v. Carino (G.R. No. L-65894 September 24, 1987), the Supreme Court emphasized that “Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent.” In other words, the retroactivity of procedural laws only affects those cases that have not been decided with finality.
Exception
to the exception
“The
rule that procedural laws are applicable to pending actions or proceedings
admits certain exceptions. The rule does not apply where the statute itself
expressly or by necessary implication provides that pending actions are
excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to pending proceedings would
impair vested rights. Under appropriate circumstances, courts may deny the
retroactive application of procedural laws in the event that to do so would not
be feasible or would work injustice. Nor may procedural laws be applied
retroactively to pending actions if to do so would involve intricate problems
of due process or impair the independence of the courts.” (Tan, Jr vs. CA, G.R. No. 136368
January 16, 2002)
In Tan Jr vs. CA, Tan Jr., the petitioner followed the old rules and decisions of the Supreme
Court on exercising his right to redeem a parcel of land. However, the Court of
Appeals (CA) applied the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure retroactively to
determine the period in which the petitioner can rightfully exercise his right
of redemption and as a result, the petitioner has lost this right. The Supreme
Court, reversed this decision of the CA because allowing the retroactivity of
such procedures would “result in great injustice to the petitioner,” who stood
to lose his “right to redeem the subject lot and this right is a substantive
right.”
A law operates retroactively when it so provides
expressly. An example is the Family Code, stating in Article 256 that “This
Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. This
Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.”
- Exception
to the exception:
a.
ex post facto law
Article
III Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution
prohibits the enactment of an ex post facto law. In People v. Sandiganbayan (G.R.
No. 101724. July 3, 1992) the definition of an ex post fact law is stated as “A
law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which
retrospectively changes the legal consequences or relations of such fact or
deed. It is a law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person
for an act done which, when it was committed, was innocent; a law which
aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; a law that
changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when it was committed; a law that changes the rules of evidence and
receives less or different testimony than was required at the time of the
commission of the offense in order to convict the offender; a law which,
assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a
penalty or the deprivation of a right which, when done, was lawful; a law which
deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or
of the proclamation of amnesty; every law which, in relation to the offense or
its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage.”
“Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 which was approved on March 16,
1982, amending Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 by increasing from ten (10) to
fifteen (15) years the period for the prescription or extinguishment of a
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, may not be given
retroactive application to the "crime" which was committed by Paredes
in January 1976 yet, for it would be prejudicial to the accused. It would
deprive him of the substantive benefit of the shorter (10 years) prescriptive
period under Section 11, R.A. 3019 which was an essential element of the
"crime" at the time he committed it. To apply B.P. Blg. 195 to Paredes
would make it an ex post facto law for it would alter his situation to his
disadvantage by making him criminally liable for a crime that had already been
extinguished under the law existing when it was committed.” (People v.
Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 101724. July 3, 1992)
b.
statutes impairing vested rights
As
cited in Rep. vs CA (G.R. No.
92326. January 24, 1992), a
vested right is “one whose existence, effectivity and extent does not depend
upon events foreign to the will of the holder.” The Family Code requires
that husband and wife must jointly file a petition for adoption for it to prosper
but the Youth Welfare Code that is operative before the effectivity of the
Family Code only requires one of them. It was decided that the Youth Welfare
Code has vested such right to the wife to file a petition without her husband
being a co-petitioner and this vested right cannot be impaired by the
retroactive application of the Family Code.
Curative statutes are retroactive. “Curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legal proceedings which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain legal requirements. They are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities and curb certain evils. They are intended to enable persons to carry into effect that which they have designed or intended, but has failed of expected legal consequence by reason of some statutory disability or irregularity in their own action. They make valid that which, before the enactment of the statute was invalid. Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with. Curative statutes, therefore, by their very essence, are retroactive.” (Narzoles vs NLRC et al G.R. No. 141959 September 29, 2000)
In Narzoles vs NLRC, the Supreme Court stated
that the amended Section 4, Rule 65 of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC is curative in
nature. The rule provides:
“Sec. 4. When and where petition filed. - The
petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new
trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60)
day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.”
The rule is said to be curative as it addresses
the confusion regarding the deadline for filing a petition for certiorari. Previous
petitions in the CA were dismissed because of late filing attributable to the
confusion on when the sixty-day period starts counting and the cases subject of
such petitions were not resolved on their merits. In other words, the latest
amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC seeks to cure or “to
validate” a legal proceeding by simplifying the rules on the deadline for filing
a petition for certiorari, consequently preventing the dismissal of petitions because
of mere technicality. Since the rule is curative, it applies retroactively even
for those petitions filed before the effectivity of such amendment.
6. Emergency laws under police power
“Jurisprudence defines police power as the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.” (Cruz vs. Pandacan Hiker's Club G.R. No. 188213, January 11, 2016)
In Viuda de Ongsiako v. Gamboa (G.R. No. L-1867 April 8, 1950), one of the issues put into question before the Supreme Court is the validity of the “50-50” sharing of agricultural crops between a landlord and tenants. This tenancy agreement was entered into before the effectivity of Act No. 4054, known as "The Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Act,” as amended by Republic Act No. 34 that provides among other things that crops should be divided 55-45, in favor of the tenants. The Supreme Court held that the implementation of such law does not impair obligations of contracts since it emanates from the proper exercise of the state’s police power and briefly discussed that this exercise addressed the urgent need to ameliorate “the well-being of the conditions of the working man.” The Supreme Court also sustained the retroactive application of the law in view of the fact that it is a proper exercise of the state’s police power.
7.
Laws creating new rights
Laws
creating new rights operates retroactively. In Castro v. CA, (G.R. Nos. 5097 4-75,
May 31, 1989), the right to prove filiation by way of "open and continuous
possession of the status of an illegitimate child" was granted to a
respondent. This right does not exist in the Civil Code but accrued to the
respondent because of the retroactive application of the new Family Code.
Summary
General
Rule: Laws are not
retroactive.
Exceptions
to the General Rule
(Mnemonic
Device: PIERCER)
1. Penal laws when favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent or a recidivist
2. Interpretative statutes
3. Expressly mandated by the law
- Exceptions to the exception:
a. ex post facto law
b. statutes impairing vested rights
4. Remedial or procedural statutes
5. Curative statutes
6. Emergency laws under police power
7. Laws creating new rights
Case
Digest
Castro v. CA, G.R. Nos. 5097 4-75, May 31,
1989
Facts:
Benita
Castro Naval was the only child of Eustaquio Castro who was not married to her
mother Pricola Maregmen. It was clear in the records of the case that the Benita,
Eustaquio and Pricola lived as a family until the death of Pricola. Eustaquio
himself reported the birth of Benita as evidenced by local registry book of
births even though the birth certificate containing the signature of Eustaquio
was not produced. He was the recorded father in Benita’s certificate of
baptism. He also gave away Benita in her wedding and still lived with him until
his death. Benita was also able to produce a picture of the Castro Family, in which
she was a part, taken during wake of Eustaquio.
Issue:
Is Benita Castro Naval the acknowledged and
recognized illegitimate child of Eustaquio Castro?
Held:
The Supreme Court gave equitable weights on the established fact and affirmed the correctness of the conclusion of the trial and appellate courts that indeed Benita is the acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child of Eustaquio Castro. To remove any doubt on this conclusion, the Supreme Court invoked the pertinent provisions of the Family Code, which could be applied retroactively when no vested rights would be affected.
In the absence of “the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or an admission of illegitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned,” the Family Code allows to prove filiation by “the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child.” This latter proof of filiation is clearly established in the case; hence, it was held that Benita Castro Naval is the acknowledged and recognized illegitimate child of Eustaquio Castro.
Reference:
Albano, Ed Vincent (2017). Persons and Family Relations. Central Book Supply Inc.: Manila
-------------------------
by Permanent Class Number 4 in Persons and Family Relations, LSPU, First Semester, SY2019-2020
Date Last Updated: 29Nov2019
Date Last Updated: 29Nov2019
