This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Statutes are prospective and not retroactive in their operation, laws being the formulation of rules for the future, not the past. Hence, the legal maxim lex de futuro, judex de praeterito the law provides for the future, the judge for the past which is articulated in Art. 4 of the Civil Code thusly: "Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided." The legislative intent as to the retroactive application of a law is made manifest either by the express terms of the statute or by necessary implication.[105] The reason for the rule is the tendency of retroactive legislation to be unjust and oppressive on account of its liability to unsettle vested rights or disturb the legal effect of prior transactions.[106] | |||||
|
2001-10-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we must point out that petitioners' reliance upon Republic Act No. 7881 is off tangent. It is not disputed that at the time of the filing of Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633, an agrarian relations dispute was pending before the DARAB. The records show that private respondents as the complainants in Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R, were asserting tenancy rights, including the right to possession of the disputed fishponds or parts thereof, under Republic Act Nos. 3844[18] and 1199.[19] Private respondents were thus claiming vested substantive rights, dating back to 1975 in the case of respondent Ignacio and 1979 in the case of respondent Nuñez, under substantive laws. A substantive law is a law, which creates, defines, or regulates rights concerning life, liberty, or property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs.[20] Republic Act No. 7881, in exempting prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, is a substantive law. By its very nature and essence, substantive law operates prospectively[21] and may not be construed retroactively without affecting previous or past rights. Hence, in view of the absence of a contrary intent in its provisions, Republic Act No. 7881 should be given a prospective operation and may not affect rights claimed under previous agrarian legislation. | |||||