Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Spouses Alejandro Mirasol and Lilia Mirasol (Petitioners) Vs Ca, Et Al (Respondents) G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001 Quisumbing, J

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    The document discusses a case involving spouses who were sugarland owners and planters that received crop loans from PNB. PNB demanded settlement of the loans but the spouses claimed the proceeds from sugar sales were enough to cover the obligations. As a result the spouses conveyed properties to PNB. The spouses continued asking for an accounting which PNB refused. The spouses then filed suit and the RTC declared the relevant decree null and void but the CA reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Alejandro Mirasol and Lilia Mirasol (Petitioners) Vs Ca, Et Al (Respondents) G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001 Quisumbing, J

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    17 views1 page
    The document discusses a case involving spouses who were sugarland owners and planters that received crop loans from PNB. PNB demanded settlement of the loans but the spouses claimed the proceeds from sugar sales were enough to cover the obligations. As a result the spouses conveyed properties to PNB. The spouses continued asking for an accounting which PNB refused. The spouses then filed suit and the RTC declared the relevant decree null and void but the CA reversed.

    Original Title

    2 MIRASOL-VS-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case involving spouses who were sugarland owners and planters that received crop loans from PNB. PNB demanded settlement of the loans but the spouses claimed the proceeds from sugar sales were enough to cover the obligations. As a result the spouses conveyed properties to PNB. The spouses continued asking for an accounting which PNB refused. The spouses then filed suit and the RTC declared the relevant decree null and void but the CA reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views1 page

    Spouses Alejandro Mirasol and Lilia Mirasol (Petitioners) Vs Ca, Et Al (Respondents) G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001 Quisumbing, J

    Uploaded by

    A M I R A
    The document discusses a case involving spouses who were sugarland owners and planters that received crop loans from PNB. PNB demanded settlement of the loans but the spouses claimed the proceeds from sugar sales were enough to cover the obligations. As a result the spouses conveyed properties to PNB. The spouses continued asking for an accounting which PNB refused. The spouses then filed suit and the RTC declared the relevant decree null and void but the CA reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SPOUSES ALEJANDRO MIRASOL AND LILIA MIRASOL (petitioners) VS CA, ET AL

    (respondents)
    G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001
    Quisumbing, J:

    FACTS

     The Mirasols are sugarland owners and planters. PNB financed the Mirasols’ sugar production
    venture under a crop loan financing scheme.
     Pres. Marcos issued PD 579 authorizing PHILEX to purchase sugar allocated for export to the US
    and to other foreign markets. The decree further authorized PNB to finance PHILEX’s purchases.
     The crop loans were secured by real estate mortgages and chattel mortgages over the properties of
    the Mirasols.
     Believing that the proceeds of the sugar sales to PNB were more than enough to cover their
    obligations, the Mirasols asked PNB for an accounting. PNB ignored the request and
    subsequently asked the petitioners to settle their due and demandable accounts.
     As a result of the demands, the petitioners conveyed to the PNB the real properties by way of
    dacion en pago (dation in payment).
     Petitioners continued to ask PNB to account for the proceeds. However, PNB remained adamant
    in its stance under PD 579 that there was nothing to account since all the earnings pertain to the
    National Government.
     The petitioners filed a suit and among the rulings of RTC is the declaration of PD 579 as null and
    void.
     The petitioners further appealed with the CA for the nullification of the dacion en pago and the
    mortgage contracts. The CA then reversed the rulings of the RTC and among others, declared the
    dacion en pago and the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties as valid.
    ISSUE*

     Whether the RTC has the authority to consider the constitutionality of a statute, PD or EO.
    HELD
    Yes, the RTC has the authority and jurisdiction to consider their constitutionality. The
    Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or
    executive agreement, PD, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation not only in the Supreme Court but
    also in all RTCs. Furthermore, BP Blg 129 grants RTCs the authority to rule on the conformity of laws
    with the Constitution.
    However, as regards the case, the CA did not err in finding that it was improper for the RTC to
    have declared PD 579 as unconstitutional since the petitioners had not complied with Rule 64, Section 3,
    of the Rules of Court. In the said rule, the Solicitor General must be notified of the case to enable him to
    decide whether or not his intervention in the action assailing the validity of a law or treaty is necessary. In
    this case, the Solicitor General was never notified nor did the RTC ever require him to appear in person or
    by a representative or to file any pleading or memorandum on the constitutionality of the assailed decree.

    *issue in relation to the topic that all courts can exercise judicial review.

    You might also like