Clue: Mirralosa’s
land in Carmel Dev’t; Tuason case in 1988 and Affidavit in 1995
MORETO MIRALLOSA and all persons claiming
rights and interests under him, Petitioner,
vs.
CARMEL DEVELOPMENT INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 194538 November 27, 2013
SERENO, CJ:
|
The
strict view considers a legislative enactment which is declared
unconstitutional as being, for all legal intents and purposes, a total
nullity, and it is deemed as if had never existed. |
FACTS
1. Mirralosa,
et.al filed Petition for Review on
Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
which reversed the Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court RTC, Caloocan
City. The RTC had reversed the
Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court MeTC), Branch 52, Caloocan City in
Civil Case No. 03-27114, ordering
petitioner to vacate the subject property in this case for ejectment.
2.
Respondent
Carmel Development, Inc. was the registered owner of a Caloocan
property known as the Pangarap Village located at Barrio Makatipo, Caloocan
City.
3.
The lot that petitioner presently occupies is Lot No. 32, Block No. 73 covered
by the titles above-mentioned.
4. On
September 1973, President Ferdinand
Marcos issued Presidential
Decree No. 293 (P.D. 293), which invalidated the titles of
respondent and declared them open for disposition to the members of the
Malacañang Homeowners Association, Inc. (MHAI).
5.
Petitioner’s
predecessor-in-interest, Pelagio M. Juan, a member of the MHAI, then occupied Lot No. 32 and subsequently built
houses there.
6. On
January 1988, the Supreme Court promulgated Roman Tuason
and Remedio V. Tuason, Attorney-in-fact, Trinidad S. Viado v. The Register of
Deeds, Caloocan City, Ministry of Justice and the National Treasurer14
(Tuason), which declared P.D. 293 as
unconstitutional and void ab initio in all its parts.
7. Sometime
in 1995, petitioner took over Lot No. 32 by virtue of an Affidavit executed
by Pelagio M. Juan.
8.
On 14 January 2003, respondent filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer before the MeTC.
9.
METC ruled in favour of the respondent; RTC
reversed the decision of MeTC, and in CA, the decision was in favour of the
respondent.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not the MeTC had jurisdiction
over the case;
2. Whether
or not Tuason may be applied here, despite petitioner not being a party to the
case; and
3. Whether or not petitioner is a builder in
good faith.
RULING: YES
Petitioner
argued that
1. Respondent
has no cause of action against him, because under the doctrine of operative
fact and the doctrine of res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicium
faciunt,
2. And
she should not be prejudiced by Tuason; the declaration of the
unconstitutionality of P.D. 293 should not affect the rights of other persons
not party to the case.
- HOWEVER,
in declaring a law null and void, the real issue is whether the nullity should
have prospective, not retroactive, application.
- The
Court held the ruling that Republic v. Court of Appeals is instructive on the
matter:
|
The strict view
considers a legislative enactment which is declared unconstitutional as
being, for all legal intents and purposes, a total nullity, and it is deemed
as if had never existed. |
- A
law declared as unconstitutional
produces no effect whatsoever and
confers no right on any person. It matters not whether the person is a
party to the original case, because "not only the parties but all persons
are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality, which means that no one
may thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in
subsequent cases. It is, in other words,
a total nullity.
- Thus,
petitioner’s invocation of the doctrine of res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicium
faciunt (meaning: Matters which are adjudged as between certain
persons effect no prejudice as to others) cannot be countenanced. We have
categorically stated that the doctrine
does not apply when the party concerned is a "successor in interest by
title subsequent to the commencement of the action, or the action or proceeding
is in rem, the judgment in which is binding against him.
- Neither
may petitioner avail himself of the operative fact doctrine, which recognizes the
interim effects of a law prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality. The
operative fact doctrine is a rule of equity. As such, it must be applied as an
exception to the general rule that an unconstitutional law produces no effects
-
COURT
held that petitioner anchored his right over the property to an Affidavit
allegedly issued by Pelagio M. Juan, a
member of the MHIA, authorizing petitioner to occupy the same. However, this Affidavit was executed only sometime in
1995, or approximately seven years after the Tuason case was promulgated.
DECISION:
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is
hereby DISMISSED.
Comments
Post a Comment