Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    Millarosa Vs Carmel Dev't, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Michelangelo Tiu
    1) A law declared unconstitutional has no legal effect and confers no rights on anyone, whether or not they were a party to the original case. 2) The petitioner took over a lot in 1995 based on an affidavit from the previous occupant, but a 1988 Supreme Court case had already declared the presidential decree allowing the original occupation as unconstitutional. 3) The petitioner cannot claim protection under the "operative fact" doctrine, which recognizes interim effects of a law before being declared unconstitutional, as applying the invalid law in this case would not unduly burden those who relied on it but rather validate an unconstitutional act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Millarosa Vs Carmel Dev't, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Michelangelo Tiu
    103 views2 pages
    1) A law declared unconstitutional has no legal effect and confers no rights on anyone, whether or not they were a party to the original case. 2) The petitioner took over a lot in 1995 based on an affidavit from the previous occupant, but a 1988 Supreme Court case had already declared the presidential decree allowing the original occupation as unconstitutional. 3) The petitioner cannot claim protection under the "operative fact" doctrine, which recognizes interim effects of a law before being declared unconstitutional, as applying the invalid law in this case would not unduly burden those who relied on it but rather validate an unconstitutional act.

    Original Title

    6. Millarosa vs Carmel Dev't, Inc.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A law declared unconstitutional has no legal effect and confers no rights on anyone, whether or not they were a party to the original case. 2) The petitioner took over a lot in 1995 based on an affidavit from the previous occupant, but a 1988 Supreme Court case had already declared the presidential decree allowing the original occupation as unconstitutional. 3) The petitioner cannot claim protection under the "operative fact" doctrine, which recognizes interim effects of a law before being declared unconstitutional, as applying the invalid law in this case would not unduly burden those who relied on it but rather validate an unconstitutional act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    103 views2 pages

    Millarosa Vs Carmel Dev't, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Michelangelo Tiu
    1) A law declared unconstitutional has no legal effect and confers no rights on anyone, whether or not they were a party to the original case. 2) The petitioner took over a lot in 1995 based on an affidavit from the previous occupant, but a 1988 Supreme Court case had already declared the presidential decree allowing the original occupation as unconstitutional. 3) The petitioner cannot claim protection under the "operative fact" doctrine, which recognizes interim effects of a law before being declared unconstitutional, as applying the invalid law in this case would not unduly burden those who relied on it but rather validate an unconstitutional act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    As a general rule, a law declared as unconstitutional produces no effect whatsoever and confers no right

    on any person.

    Millarosa vs Carmen Development, Inc. GR No. 194538

    Facts
    Respondent Carmen Development was the owner of Pangarap Village in Caloocan. In 1973, President
    Marcos issued PD 293 wihich invalidated the titles of the respondent and declared it open for disposition
    to the members of malacanang homeowners association inc. Pelagio Juan, petitioner’s predecessor-in-
    interest occupied lot 32 thereafter. However, in 1988, the Court promulgated the case of Tuason vs
    Tuason declaring the PD 293 unconstitutional and void ab inito. Thus, the Court ordered for the
    cancellation of the inscription in the titles.

    In 1995, petitioner took over lot no. 32 by virtue of affidavit from Pelagio Juan in his favor. Respondent
    invoked the ruling in Tuason and demanded that the property be vacated by the petitioner. Petitionetr
    refused, thus prompted respondent to file a complaint of unlawful detainer. MTC ruled in favor of
    respondent herein, but RTC reversed.

    Issue
    WON Tuason case would apply to herein petitioner’s case when he invoked the doctrine of operative fact.

    Held
    As a general rule, a law declared as unconstitutional produces no effect whatsoever and confers no right
    on any person. It matters not whether the person is a party to the original case, because “[n]ot only the
    parties but all persons are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality, which means that no one may
    thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases. It is, in other words,
    a total nullity.” We have categorically stated that the doctrine does not apply when the party concerned
    is a “successor in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, or the action or
    proceeding is in rem, the judgment in which is binding against him.” While petitioner may not have been
    a party to Tuason, still, the judgment is binding on him because the declaration of P.D. 293 as a nullity
    partakes of the nature of an in rem proceeding.

    Neither may petitioner avail himself of the operative fact doctrine, which recognizes the interim effects
    of a law prior to its declaration of unconstitutionality. The operative fact doctrine is a rule of equity. As
    such, it must be applied as an exception to the general rule that an unconstitutional law produces no
    effects. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden
    on those who have relied on the invalid law, but it can never be invoked to validate as constitutional an
    unconstitutional act.
    In this case, petitioner could not be said to have been unduly burdened by reliance on an invalid law.
    Petitioner merely anchored his right over the property to an Affidavit allegedly issued by Pelagio M. Juan,
    a member of the MHIA, authorizing petitioner to occupy the same. However, this Affidavit was executed
    only sometime in 1995, or approximately seven years after the Tuason case was promulgated. At the time
    petitioner built the structures on the premises, he ought to have been aware of the binding effects of the
    Tuason case and the subsequent unconstitutionality of P.D. 293. These circumstances necessarily remove
    him from the ambit of the operative fact doctrine.

    You might also like