Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v.

Feliciano
FACTS:
-On Dec 26, 1964 respondent Feliciano wrote to the President of the Philippines urging immediate importation of
595,400 metric tons of rice. On Dec 27, 1964.The President submitted the said letter to his cabinet for
consideration, and the cabinet approved the needed importation Dec 28, 1964.
-The President designated respondent Feliciano through the Rice and Corn Administration to undertake the
importation, and thus respondent Feliciano announced an invitation to bid setting the bidding at Feb 1, 1965.
-Petitioner Iloilo Palay and Corn Association filed an instant petition before the Supreme Court considering that
said importation is contrary to RA 3452 which prohibit the government from importing rice, seeking to restrain
respondents from conducting said bid.
-Petitioners prayed for issuance of preliminary injunction which the Court granted.
-Respondents answered that they anchor on the validity of the importation on RA 2207, which they believe still
stands.
ISSUES:
-WON the importation in question is illegal because it is prohibited by RA 3452, section 10 which provide that
importation of rice and corn is only left to private parties.
-WON RA 2207 has already been repealed by 3452
HELD:
No, RA 2207 is not repealed by RA 3452.
Section 16 of RA 3452 contains a repealing clause which provides "All laws or parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.". This repealing clause is not an express
repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the act/s that are intended to be repealed. Rather, it is a
clause which predicates the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in
existing and prior acts. Such being the case, the presumption against implied repeals and the rule against strict
construction regarding implied repeals apply ex proprio vigre. The failure to add a specific repealing
clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless on irreconcilable inconsistency and
repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws. Here there is no inconsistency.










Ting vs Velez-Ting
FACTS:
- Psychological Incapacity as a ground for Nullity of Marriage
- On January 9, 1998, the lower court rendered its Decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and
respondent null and void.
- Petitioner appealed to the CA. On October 19, 2000, the CA rendered a Decision reversing the trial courts
ruling. It faulted the trial courts finding, stating that no proof was adduced to support the conclusion that
Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated at the time he married Carmen since Dr. Oates conclusion was
based only on theories and not on established fact, contrary to the guidelines set forth in Santos v. Court of
Appeals and in Rep. of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals and Molina.
- Carmen filed a MR, it was denied then she filed a petition for certiorari with the SC, SC directed CA to decide
on Carmens case. On review, CA reversed its earlier ruling.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA violated the rule on stare decisis when it refused to follow the guidelines set forth under the
Santos and Molina cases.
HELD:
Respondents argument that the doctrinal guidelines prescribed in Santos and Molina should not be
applied retroactively for being contrary to the principle of stare decisis is no longer new. The same argument was
also raised but was struck down in Pesca v. Pesca, and again in Antonio v. Reyes. In these cases the court
explained that the interpretation or construction of a law by courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date the
statute is enacted. It is only when a prior ruling of this Court is overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the
new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and
have acted in good faith, in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of lex prospicit, non respicit.










ALBINO S. CO vs COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:
- A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22

was filed by the salvage company against petitioner with
the Regional Trial Court.
- The case eventuated in petitioners conviction of the crime charged on the basis that a check issued merely to guarantee
the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22. Pending litigation, Ministry of Justice Circular
No. 4 (which excludes guarantee check from application of B.P. Blg. 22) was subsequently reversed by Ministry Circular
No. 12 which ruled that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by
B.P. Blg. 22.
-Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. There he sought exoneration upon the theory that it was reversible error for
the Regional Trial Court but the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

ISSUE:
WON Ministry Circular No. 12 dated August 8, 1984 declaring the guarantee check will no longer be considered as a valid
defense be retroactively applied.
HELD:
NO. Decision of the Court of Appeals and RTC were set aside. Criminal prosecution against accused-petitioner was
dismissed.
It would seem that the weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the proposition that the Courts decision of September
21, 1987 in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160 (1987) that a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an
obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22 should not be given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the
petitioner and other persons situated, who relied on the official opinion of the Minister of Justice that such a check did not
fall within the scope of B.P. Blg. 22.This is after all a criminal action all doubts in which, pursuant to familiar, fundamental
doctrine, must be resolved in favor of the accused. Everything considered, the Court sees no compelling reason why the
doctrine of mala prohibita should override the principle of prospectivity, and its clear implications as herein above set out
and discussed, negating criminal liability.












Pesca v. Pesca
FACTS:
-The petitioner and respondent were married and had four children.
- Lorna filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the
part of her husband. She alleged that he is emotionally immature and irresponsible. He was cruel and violent. He
was a habitual drinker. Whenever she tells him to stop or at least minimize his drinking, her husband would hurt
her. There was even a time when she was chased by a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in the presence
of their children. The children also suffered physical violence. Petitioner and their children left the home. Two
months later, they returned upon the promise of respondent to change. But he didnt. She was battered again.
- Her husband was imprisoned for 11 days for slight physical injuries. RTC declared their marriage null and void.
CA reversed RTCs ruling. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
W/N the guidelines for psychological incapacity in the case of Republic vs CA & Molina should be taken in
consideration in deciding in this case.
HELD:
Petition denied.The Court held that the doctrine of stare decisis ordained in Article 8 of the CivilCode, expresses
that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of thelegal system of the Philippines. The
rule follows the legal maxim legis interpretado legis vimobtinet that the interpretation placed upon the written
law by a competent court has the force of law. The interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes
the contemporaneouslegislative intent of the law. The latter as so interpreted and construed would thus constitute
apart of that law as of the date the statute was enacted. It is only when a prior ruling of the Courtfinds itself later
overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to beapplied prospectively in favour of
the parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have actedin good faith in accordance therewith (lex prospicit,
non respicit). Petitioner utterly failed, both inher allegations and in her evidence to prove psychological incapacity
on the part of therespondent