Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 398 views

    Duenas vs. Santos Subd

    Uploaded by

    Jeromeo Hallazgo de Leon
    This case discusses whether Presidential Decree No. 957, which requires open spaces for recreational activities in subdivisions, should apply retroactively to Santos Subdivision. The Supreme Court ruled that the case cited as precedent (Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon) does not apply because in that case the subdivision was not fully developed, whereas Santos Subdivision was fully developed. The Court also found that neither P.D. No. 957 nor its amendment, P.D. No. 1216, contain any explicit statement that they should apply retroactively, as is required by law. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No

    Copyright:

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

    Duenas vs. Santos Subd

    Uploaded by

    Jeromeo Hallazgo de Leon
    398 views3 pages
    This case discusses whether Presidential Decree No. 957, which requires open spaces for recreational activities in subdivisions, should apply retroactively to Santos Subdivision. The Supreme Court ruled that the case cited as precedent (Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon) does not apply because in that case the subdivision was not fully developed, whereas Santos Subdivision was fully developed. The Court also found that neither P.D. No. 957 nor its amendment, P.D. No. 1216, contain any explicit statement that they should apply retroactively, as is required by law. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether Presidential Decree No. 957, which requires open spaces for recreational activities in subdivisions, should apply retroactively to Santos Subdivision. The Supreme Court ruled that the case cited as precedent (Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon) does not apply because in that case the subdivision was not fully developed, whereas Santos Subdivision was fully developed. The Court also found that neither P.D. No. 957 nor its amendment, P.D. No. 1216, contain any explicit statement that they should apply retroactively, as is required by law. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    398 views3 pages

    Duenas vs. Santos Subd

    Uploaded by

    Jeromeo Hallazgo de Leon
    This case discusses whether Presidential Decree No. 957, which requires open spaces for recreational activities in subdivisions, should apply retroactively to Santos Subdivision. The Supreme Court ruled that the case cited as precedent (Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon) does not apply because in that case the subdivision was not fully developed, whereas Santos Subdivision was fully developed. The Court also found that neither P.D. No. 957 nor its amendment, P.D. No. 1216, contain any explicit statement that they should apply retroactively, as is required by law. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Gloria Santos Duenas vs.

    Santos Subd
    GR 149417 june 4, 2004

    Facts: Petitioner Dueñas is the daughter of the late Cecilio


    Santos who, during his lifetime, owned a parcel of land with a
    total area of 2.2 hectares located at General T. De Leon,
    Valenzuela City , Metro Manila. In 1966, Cecilio had the realty
    subdivided into smaller lots, the whole forming the Cecilio J.
    Santos Subdivision. The Land Registration Commission
    approved the project and the National Housing Authority
    issued the required Certificate of Registration and License to
    Sell. At the time of Cecilio’s death in 1988, there were already
    several residents and homeowners in Santos Subdivision.
    Sometime in 1997, the members of the SSHA submitted to the
    petitioner a resolution asking her to provide within
    the subdivision an open space for recreational and other
    community activities, in accordance with the provisions of P.D.
    No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1216. Petitioner, however,
    rejected the request, thus, promptingthe members of SSHA to
    seek redress from the NHA. The Regional Director HLURB
    opined that the open space requirement of P.D. No. 957 was
    not applicable to Santos Subdivision. SSHA filed a motion for
    reconsideration, which averred among others that: P.D. No.
    957 should apply retroactively to Santos Subdivision. HLURB-
    NCR dismissed the complaint. It ruled that while SSHA failed
    to present evidence showing that it is an association duly
    organized under Philippine law with capacity to sue. SSHA
    then appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners. The
    latter body, however, affirmed the action taken by the HLURB-
    NCR office. Respondent sought relief from the Court of
    Appeals which granted the petition and accordingly ordered
    the case to be remanded to the HLURB. Petitioner moved for
    reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied.
    Issue : Whether or not PD No. 957 should be retroactively
    applies in this case
    Held: The petitioner assails the appellate court’s finding based
    on the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in Eugenio v. Exec.
    Sec. Drilon which allowed P.D. No. 957, as amended, to
    apply retroactively.
    The Supreme Court ruled that Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon is
    inapplicable in this case. The issue in Eugenio was the
    applicability of P.D. No. 957 to purchase agreements on lots
    entered into prior to its enactment where there was non-
    payment of amortizations, and failure to develop
    the subdivision. It held therein that although P.D. No. 957 does
    not provide for any retroactive application, nonetheless, the
    intent of the law of protecting the helpless citizensfrom the
    manipulations and machinations of
    unscrupuloussubdivision and condominium sellers justify its
    retroactive application to contracts entered into prior to its
    enactment. Hence, the SC ruled that the non-payment of
    amortizations was justified under Section 23 of the said
    decree in view of the failure of the subdivision owner to
    develop the subdivision project.
    Unlike Eugenio, non-development of the subdivision is not
    present in this case, nor any allegation of non-payment of
    amortizations. Further, it has held in a subsequent case that
    P.D. No. 957, as amended, cannot be applied retroactively in
    view of the absence of any express provision on its retroactive
    application. Thus:
    …Article 4 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall have no
    retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. Thus, it is
    necessary that an express provision for its retroactive
    application must be made in the law. There being no such
    provision in both P.D. Nos. 957 and 1344, these decrees
    cannot be applied to a situation that occurred years before
    their promulgation…. 
    The SC has examined the text of P.D. No. 1216 and has not
    found any clause or provision expressly providing for its
    retroactive application. Basic is the rule that no statute,
    decree, ordinance, rule or regulation shall be given
    retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. Hence, there is no
    legal basis to hold that P.D. No. 1216 should apply
    retroactively.

    You might also like