This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-02-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Notwithstanding that the respondent's application for registration was filed and granted by RTC prior to the Court's ruling in T.A.N. Properties, the pronouncements in that case may be applied to the present case; it is not antithetical to the rule of non-retroactivity of laws pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil Code. It is elementary that the interpretation of a law by this Court constitutes part of that law from the date it was originally passed, since this Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect.[35] "Such judicial doctrine does not amount to the passage of a new law, but consists merely of a construction or interpretation of a pre-existing one."[36] | |||||