de agbayani vs pnb rev01

2
DE AGBAYANI vs PNB_digest PKI TANGAL NG BULLETS WHEN WRITING Agbayani obtained a loan P450 from PNB secured by a REM, which was to mature 5 years later. 15 years later, PNB sought to foreclose the REM. Agbayani filed a complaint claiming that it was barred by prescription. She also claims that she obtained an injunction against the sheriff. PNB argued that the claim has not yet prescribed if the period from the time of issuance of EO32 to the time when RA 342 was issued should be deducted. o E0 32 was issued in 1945 – providing for debt moratorium o RA 342 was issued in 1948 - extension of the debt moratorium The RA 342 was declared void and since it was an extension of EO 32, EO 32 was likewise nullified. Here, RA 342 (the debt moratorium law) continued EO 32, suspending the payment of debts by war sufferers. However RA 342 could not pass the test of validity. (I think what Justice Fernando was saying is that the law was later declared unconstitutional because it violates the non-impairment of contractual obligations clause in the constitution). PNB claims that this period should be deducted from the prescriptive period since during this time the bank took no legal steps for the recovery of the loan. As such, the action has not yet prescribed. ISSUE: Has the action prescribed? HELD: The general rule is that an unconstitutional act because it suffers from infirmity, cannot be a source of legal rights or duties. When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. However, prior to the declaration of nullity of such challenged legislative act must have been in force and had to be complied

Upload: sherwin

Post on 18-Aug-2015

13 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

consti2

TRANSCRIPT

DE AGBAYANI vs PNB_digestPKI TANGAL NG BULLETS WHEN WRITING Agbayani obtained a loan P450 from PNB secured by a REM, which was to mature 5 years later !5 years later, PNB sought to foreclose the REM Agbayani "led a com#laint claiming that it was barred by #rescri#tion $healso claims that she obtained an in%unction against the sheri& PNB argued that the claim has not yet #rescribed if the #eriod from the time of issuance of E'() to the time when RA (4) was issued should be deducted o E0 () was issued in !*45 + #ro,iding for debt moratoriumo RA (4) was issued in !*4-. e/tension of the debt moratorium 0he RA (4) was declared ,oid and since it was an e/tension of E' (), E' () was li1ewise nulli"ed 2ere, RA (4) 3the debt moratorium law4 continued E' (), sus#ending the #ayment of debts by war su&erers 2owe,er RA (4) could not #ass the test of ,alidity 35 thin1 what 6ustice 7ernando was saying is that the law was later declared unconstitutional because it ,iolates the non.im#airment of contractual obligations clause in the constitution4 PNB claims that this #eriod should be deducted from the #rescri#ti,e #eriod since during this time the ban1 too1 no legal ste#s for the reco,eryof the loan As such, the action has not yet #rescribed ISSUE: 2as the action #rescribed8HELD:0he general rule is that an unconstitutional act because it su&ers from in"rmity, cannot be a source of legal rights or duties 9hen the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the :onstitution, the former shall be ,oid and the latter shall go,ern 2owe,er, #rior to the declaration of nullity of such challenged legislati,e act must ha,e been in force and had to be com#lied with 0his is so as until afterthe %udiciary, in an a##ro#riate case declares its in,alidity, it is entitled to obedience and res#ect $uch legislati,e act was in o#eration and #resumed to be ,alid in all res#ects 5t is now acce#ted that #rior to its being nulli"ed, its e/istence as a fact must be rec1oned with 0his is merely to re;ect the awareness that #recisely because the %udiciary is the go,ernmental organ which has the "nal say on whether a legislati,e act is ,alid, a #eriod of time may ha,e ela#sed before it can e/ercise the #ower of %udicial re,iew that may lead to a declaration of nullity 5t would e to de#ri,e the law of its