Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 202789 2015-06-22	CIR v. PUREGOLD DUTY FREE VELASCO JR., J.
For this reason, this Court subscribes to the doctrine of operative fact, which recognizes that a judicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily obliterate all the effects and consequences of a void act prior to such declaration.[20] The seminal case of Serrano de Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank[21] discusses the application of the doctrine, thus: The decision now on appeal reflects the orthodox view that an unconstitutional act, for that matter an executive order or a municipal ordinance likewise suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source of any legal rights or duties. Nor can it justify any official act taken under it. Its repugnancy to the fundamental law once judicially declared results in its being to all intents and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the new Civil Code puts it: "When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws of the Constitution." It is understandable why it should be so, the Constitution being supreme and paramount. Any legislative or executive act contrary to its terms cannot survive.
	GR No. 194538 2013-11-27	MORETO MIRALLOSA v. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT SERENO, C.J.
Again, petitioner's argument deserves scant consideration. In declaring a law null and void, the real issue is whether the nullity should have prospective, not retroactive, application.[55] Republic v. Court of Appeals[56] 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. x x x.
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
In Republic v. CA & Henrico Uvero, et al., [268] the Court held: A judicial declaration of invalidity, it is also true, may not necessarily obliterate all the effects and consequences of a void act occurring prior to such a declaration. Thus, in our decisions on the moratorium laws, we have been constrained to recognize the interim effects of said laws prior to their declaration of unconstitutionality, but there we have likewise been unable to simply ignore strong considerations of equity and fair play. So also, even as a practical matter, a situation that may aptly be described as fait accompli may no longer be open for further inquiry, let alone to be unsettled by a subsequent declaration of nullity of a governing statute.
	GR No. 166006 2008-03-14	PLANTERS PRODUCTS v. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play.[55] It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.[56]