Posts

Showing posts with the label PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF LAWS

DACUDAO vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE | G.R. No. 188056 | January 8, 2013

DACUDAO vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE G.R. No. 188056, January 8, 2013    Facts Petitioners were among the investors whom Celso G. Delos Angeles, Jr. and his associates in the Legacy Group of Companies allegedly defrauded through the Legacy Group's "buy back agreement" that earned them check payments that were dishonored. After their written demands for the return of their investments went unheeded, they initiated a number of charges for syndicated estafa against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al. in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City on February 6, 2009.     On March 18, 2009, the Secretary of Justice issued Department of Justice (DOJ) Order No. 182 (DO No. 182), directing all Regional State Prosecutors, Provincial Prosecutors, and City Prosecutors to forward all cases already filed against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al. to the Secretariat of the DOJ Special Panel in Manila for appropriate action. Thereafter, the petitioners directly went to the Supreme Court via p...

MERLINDA CIPRIANO MONTANEZ vs. LOURDES TAJOLOSA CIPRIANO | G.R. No. 181089 | October 22, 2012

MERLINDA CIPRIANO MONTANEZ vs. LOURDES TAJOLOSA CIPRIANO G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012    Facts On April 8, 1976, Lourdes Tajolosa married Socrates Flores. On January 4, 1983 Lourdes remarried Silverio V. Cipriano. In 2001, respondent filed a Petition for the Annulment in the Regional Trial Court in the ground of psychological incapacity as defined in Article 36 of the Family Code. On July 8, 2003, the marriage was declared null and void. On May 14, 2004, Silverio‘s daughter filed a complaint of bigamy against Lourdes under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Lourdes then contended that sine her two marriages were contracted prior to the Family Code, Article 40 cannot be retroactive effect because it will impair her right to remarry without need of securing a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. The RTC dismissed the complaint ruling that the existing law at the time of the second marriage do not require a judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a condition ...

PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. STOCKHOLDERS OF INTERCITY SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC. | G.R. No. 181556 | December 14, 2009

PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. STOCKHOLDERS OF INTERCITY SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC. G.R. No. 181556, December 14, 2009    Facts The Central Bank of the Philippines, now known as BangkoSentralngPilipinas, filed on June 17, 1987 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati a Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. (Intercity Bank) alleging that said bank was already insolvent and its continuance in business would involve probable loss to depositors, creditors and the general public. The trial court gave it due course.Petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation was eventually substituted as the therein petitioner, liquidator of Intercity Bank. In the meantime, Republic Act No. 9302 which provides that ―After the payment of all liabilities and claims against the closed bank, the Corporation shall pay any surplus dividends at the legal rate of interest, from date of takeover to date of distribution, to creditors an...

BERNABE vs. ALEJO | G.R. No. 140500 | January 21, 2002

BERNABE vs. ALEJO G.R. No. 140500, January 21, 2002    Facts Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his secretary, Carolina Alejo. The son was born on September 18, 1981and was named Adrian Bernabe. Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe died as well as his legitimate wife, leaving Ernestina Bernabe the sole surviving heir.     Carolina, in behalf of her son, filed a complaint praying that Adrian be declared an acknowledged child of the deceased and also be given the share of Bernabe‘s estate. Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint and said that the death of the putative father had barred the action. Further, under the law, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent to give the latter an opportunity to either affirm or deny the child‘s filiation.    The Court of Appeals ruled that the rights of Adrian are governed under Article 285 of the Civil Code which allows an action for rec...

JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 112193 | March 31, 1996

JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 112193, March 31, 1996    Facts In 1959, Jose M. Aruego Sr., a married man, had an amorous relationship with Luz M. Fabian until his death on March 30, 1982. Out of this relationship were born Antonio Aruego and Evelyn F. Aruego. On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights was filed by the minors, Antonia and Evelyn. However, Jose Aruego Jr., and the petitioners also filed a complaint to declare the private respondents as illegitimate children of their defunct father. The lower court decided that Antonia Aruego is an illegitimate daughter or Jose Aruego Sr., and Luz M. Fabian and that she is entitled to a share of equal to one-half portion of share of the legitimate. So the petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration alleging loss of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court over the complaint by virtue of the passage of E.O. 209 or the Family Code of the Philippi...