Topic: Retroactive effects of law
SF: An administrative case was filed by herein complainant against Judge Brilliantes of MTC, Manila. Complainant alleges that he has two children with De Castro who stays in Makati, Manila in the house he bought and stayed while he is in Manila. Sometime in 1991 he saw Respondent Judge sleeping on his bed, upon inquiry, he was told by the houseboy that respondent was cohabiting with De Castro. Complainant further alleged that respondent was married to a certain Zenaida Ongkiko and begot five children.
In reply respondent alleged that the complainant was not married to De Castro, he also denied having been married to Zenaida ongkiko, however admitted having five children with her. He stated that the marriage between him and Ongkiko was not valid since there was no marriage license and further claimed that when he married De Castro he believed in all good faith of it’s intent and purpose.
I: Whether or not Article 40 of the Family Code that required nullity of previous marriage for purpose of remarriage shall apply?
H: As a general rule provided in Article 4 of the NCC: Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
R: Article 40 of the Family Code provides that a Judicial Declaration of Nullity is required before a party can enter into second marriage however the said Code took effect only on August 3, 1988 and the marriages that respondent contracted was 1965 and 1991 however the provisions of this code shall apply regardless of the date of the marriage, besides under Article 256 of the Family Code, said Article is given “retroactive effects in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws” this is particularly true with Article 40 which is a rule of Procedure, herein respondent has not shown any vested rights that was impaired by the application of Article 40 ti his case.
**To see the legends of this case follow this link
No comments:
Post a Comment