Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Mirasol v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Thalia Dela Cruz
    This case digest summarizes Mirasol vs CA, which deals with the constitutionality of Presidential Decree 579 relating to the financing and purchase of sugar. The Mirasols took out loans from Philippine National Bank (PNB) to finance their sugar production. PNB sold the sugar and was supposed to apply the proceeds to pay off the Mirasols' loans but did not provide an accounting. The digest discusses the issues of whether trial courts can declare statutes unconstitutional without notifying the Solicitor General, whether PD 579 was unconstitutional, and whether presidential decrees are subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court held that trial courts do have the power of judicial review and can consider constitutionality but must notify the

    Copyright:

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

    Mirasol v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Thalia Dela Cruz
    47 views1 page
    This case digest summarizes Mirasol vs CA, which deals with the constitutionality of Presidential Decree 579 relating to the financing and purchase of sugar. The Mirasols took out loans from Philippine National Bank (PNB) to finance their sugar production. PNB sold the sugar and was supposed to apply the proceeds to pay off the Mirasols' loans but did not provide an accounting. The digest discusses the issues of whether trial courts can declare statutes unconstitutional without notifying the Solicitor General, whether PD 579 was unconstitutional, and whether presidential decrees are subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court held that trial courts do have the power of judicial review and can consider constitutionality but must notify the

    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 digest summarizes Mirasol vs CA, which deals with the constitutionality of Presidential Decree 579 relating to the financing and purchase of sugar. The Mirasols took out loans from Philippine National Bank (PNB) to finance their sugar production. PNB sold the sugar and was supposed to apply the proceeds to pay off the Mirasols' loans but did not provide an accounting. The digest discusses the issues of whether trial courts can declare statutes unconstitutional without notifying the Solicitor General, whether PD 579 was unconstitutional, and whether presidential decrees are subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court held that trial courts do have the power of judicial review and can consider constitutionality but must notify the

    Copyright:

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

    Mirasol v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Thalia Dela Cruz
    This case digest summarizes Mirasol vs CA, which deals with the constitutionality of Presidential Decree 579 relating to the financing and purchase of sugar. The Mirasols took out loans from Philippine National Bank (PNB) to finance their sugar production. PNB sold the sugar and was supposed to apply the proceeds to pay off the Mirasols' loans but did not provide an accounting. The digest discusses the issues of whether trial courts can declare statutes unconstitutional without notifying the Solicitor General, whether PD 579 was unconstitutional, and whether presidential decrees are subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court held that trial courts do have the power of judicial review and can consider constitutionality but must notify the

    Copyright:

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

    DELA CRUZ, THALIA BACOLOD ABPO4

    CASE DIGEST
    MIRASOL VS CA [351 SCRA 44; G.R. No.128448; 1 Feb 2001]

    Facts: The Mirasols are Sugarland owners and planters. Philippine National Bank (PNB) financed the
    Mirasols' sugar production venture FROM 1973-1975 under a crop loan financing scheme. The Mirasols
    signed Credit Agreements, a Chattel Mortgage on Standing Crops, and a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of
    PNB. The 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 issued PD 579 in November, 1974
    authorizingPhilippine Exchange Co., Inc. (PHILEX) to purchase sugar allocated for export and authorized
    PNB to finance PHILEX's purchases. The decree directed that whatever profit PHILEX might realize was to
    be remitted to the government. Believing that the proceeds were more than enough to pay their
    obligations, petitioners asked PNB for an accounting of the proceeds which it ignored. 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.

    Issues: (1) 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. (2) Whether PD 579 and subsequent issuances thereof are unconstitutional. (3) Whether
    or not said PD is subject to judicial review.

    Held: It is settled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the
    constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree, or executive order. The Constitution vests the power
    of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement,
    presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all Regional
    Trial Courts. The purpose of the mandatory notice in Rule 64, Section 3 is to enable the Solicitor General
    to decide whether or not his intervention in the action assailing the validity of a law or treaty is
    necessary. To deny the Solicitor General such notice would be tantamount to depriving him of his day in
    court. We must stress that, contrary to petitioners' stand, the mandatory notice requirement is not
    limited to actions involving declaratory relief and similar remedies. The rule itself provides that such
    notice is required in "any action" and not just actions involving declaratory relief. Where there is no
    ambiguity in the words used in the rule, there is no room for construction. 15 In all actions assailing the
    validity of a statute, treaty, presidential decree, order, or proclamation, notice to the Solicitor General is
    mandatory. 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

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy