Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Aruego Jr. Vs Court of Appeals

    Transféré par

    Dayday Able
    50 vues1 page
    The Supreme Court case involved a complaint filed in 1983 by minors Antonia and Evelyn Aruego seeking compulsory recognition and enforcement of their successional rights against Jose Aruego Jr's legitimate children. The RTC ruled in favor of Antonia Aruego. On appeal, the question was whether the 1988 Family Code, which took effect after the complaint was filed, could retroactively apply to deprive the court of jurisdiction based on prescription. The Supreme Court held that applying the Family Code retroactively in this case would impair the respondents' vested rights to have their case decided under the Civil Code, so the Family Code did not apply retroactively here.

    Description originale:

    case law

    Titre original

    Aruego Jr. vs Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The Supreme Court case involved a complaint filed in 1983 by minors Antonia and Evelyn Aruego seeking compulsory recognition and enforcement of their successional rights against Jose Aruego Jr's legitimate children. The RTC ruled in favor of Antonia Aruego. On appeal, the question was whether the 1988 Family Code, which took effect after the complaint was filed, could retroactively apply to deprive the court of jurisdiction based on prescription. The Supreme Court held that applying the Family Code retroactively in this case would impair the respondents' vested rights to have their case decided under the Civil Code, so the Family Code did not apply retroactively here.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    50 vues1 page

    Aruego Jr. Vs Court of Appeals

    Transféré par

    Dayday Able
    The Supreme Court case involved a complaint filed in 1983 by minors Antonia and Evelyn Aruego seeking compulsory recognition and enforcement of their successional rights against Jose Aruego Jr's legitimate children. The RTC ruled in favor of Antonia Aruego. On appeal, the question was whether the 1988 Family Code, which took effect after the complaint was filed, could retroactively apply to deprive the court of jurisdiction based on prescription. The Supreme Court held that applying the Family Code retroactively in this case would impair the respondents' vested rights to have their case decided under the Civil Code, so the Family Code did not apply retroactively here.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 1

    Aruego Jr.

    vs Court of Appeals
    On November 5, 2010

    264 scra 711 No retroactive effect if vested rights are impaired On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional rights was filed before RTC Manila by the minors Antonia Aruego and alleged the sister Evelyn Aruego represented by their mother Luz Fabian. The complaint was opposed by the legitimate children of Jose Aruego Jr. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Antonia Aruego. A petition for certiorari was then filed alleging that the Family Code of the Philippines which took effect on August 3, 1988 shall have a retroactive effect thereby the trial court lost jurisdiction over the complaint on the ground of prescription. ISSUE: Whether or not the Family Code shall have a retroactive effect in the case. HELD: The Supreme Court upheld that the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect in so far as the instant case is concerned as its application will prejudice the vested rights of respondents to have her case be decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. It is a well settled reception that laws shall have a retroactive effect unless it would impair vested rights. Therefore, the Family Code in this case cannot be given a retroactive effect.

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi