Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 204 views

    Mirasol Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Abegail De Leon
    This case involves a dispute between the Mirasols and Philippine National Bank (PNB) over the proceeds from the Mirasols' sugar production that was financed by PNB. PNB claimed it was not required to account for the proceeds based on Presidential Decree 579, which directed sugar profits to the government. The Mirasols argued PD 579 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of PD 579 because the requirements for judicial review were met, including an actual case, ripeness, standing, the issue being raised at the earliest opportunity, and constitutionality being the central question. The case was remanded for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of

    Copyright:

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

    Mirasol Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Abegail De Leon
    204 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute between the Mirasols and Philippine National Bank (PNB) over the proceeds from the Mirasols' sugar production that was financed by PNB. PNB claimed it was not required to account for the proceeds based on Presidential Decree 579, which directed sugar profits to the government. The Mirasols argued PD 579 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of PD 579 because the requirements for judicial review were met, including an actual case, ripeness, standing, the issue being raised at the earliest opportunity, and constitutionality being the central question. The case was remanded for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of

    Original Title

    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?

    This case involves a dispute between the Mirasols and Philippine National Bank (PNB) over the proceeds from the Mirasols' sugar production that was financed by PNB. PNB claimed it was not required to account for the proceeds based on Presidential Decree 579, which directed sugar profits to the government. The Mirasols argued PD 579 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of PD 579 because the requirements for judicial review were met, including an actual case, ripeness, standing, the issue being raised at the earliest opportunity, and constitutionality being the central question. The case was remanded for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of

    Copyright:

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

    Mirasol Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Abegail De Leon
    This case involves a dispute between the Mirasols and Philippine National Bank (PNB) over the proceeds from the Mirasols' sugar production that was financed by PNB. PNB claimed it was not required to account for the proceeds based on Presidential Decree 579, which directed sugar profits to the government. The Mirasols argued PD 579 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of PD 579 because the requirements for judicial review were met, including an actual case, ripeness, standing, the issue being raised at the earliest opportunity, and constitutionality being the central question. The case was remanded for the trial court to rule on the constitutionality of

    Copyright:

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

    MIRASOL VS CA

    [351 SCRA 44; G.R. No. 128448; 1 Feb 2001]

    Facts:

    Philippine National Bank (PNB) financed the Mirasols' sugar production venture. A signed Chattel Mortgage empowered PNB to
    negotiate and sell the latter's sugar and to apply the proceeds to the payment of their obligations to it.

    President Marcos PD 579 directed that whatever profit PHILEX might realize was to be remitted to the government. Petitioners
    continued to avail of other loans from PNB and to make unfunded withdrawals from their accounts with said bank. PNB asked
    petitioners to settle their due and demandable accounts. As a result, petitioners, conveyed to PNB real properties by way of dacion
    en pago still leaving an unpaid amount. PNB proceeded to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgaged properties. PNB still had a
    deficiency claim.

    Petitioners continued to ask PNB to account for the proceeds, insisting that said proceeds, if properly liquidated, could offset their
    outstanding obligations. PNB remained adamant in its stance that under P.D. No. 579, there was nothing to account since under
    said law, all earnings from the export sales of sugar pertained to the National Government.

    On August 9, 1979, the Mirasols filed a suit for accounting, specific performance, and damages against PNB.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the Trial Court has jurisdiction to declare a statute unconstitutional without notice to the Solicitor General where the
    parties have agreed to submit such issue for the resolution of the Trial Court.

    Whether PD 579 and subsequent issuances thereof are unconstitutional.

    Whether or not said PD is subject to judicial review.


    Held:

    Petitioners contend that P.D. No. 579 and its implementing issuances are void for violating the due process clause and the
    prohibition against the taking of private property without just compensation. Petitioners now ask this Court to exercise its power of
    judicial review.

    Jurisprudence has laid down the following requisites for the exercise of this power: First, there must be before the Court an actual
    case calling for the exercise of judicial review. Second, the question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication. Third, the person
    challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must have been raised at
    the earliest opportunity, and lastly, the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

    You might also like