Atienza vs Brillantes 243 SCRA 32 Topic: Retroactive effects of law SF: An administrative case was filed by herein complainant

against Judge Brilliantes of MTC, Manila. Complainant alleges that he has two children with De Castro who stays in Makati, Manila in the house he bought and stayed while he is in Manila. Sometime in 1991 he saw Respondent Judge sleeping on his bed, upon inquiry, he was told by the houseboy that respondent was cohabiting with De Castro. Complainant further alleged that respondent was married to a certain Zenaida Ongkiko and begot five children. In reply respondent alleged that the complainant was not married to De Castro, he also denied having been married to Zenaida ongkiko, however admitted having five children with her. He stated that the marriage between him and Ongkiko was not valid since there was no marriage license and further claimed that when he married De Castro he believed in all good faith of its intent and purpose. Issue: Whether or not Article 40 of the Family Code that required nullity of previous marriage for purpose of remarriage shall apply?

Held: As a general rule provided in Article 4 of the NCC: Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. Ratio Dicidendi: Article 40 of the Family Code provides that a Judicial Declaration of Nullity is required before a party can enter into second marriage however the said Code took effect only on August 3, 1988 and the marriages that respondent contracted was 1965 and 1991 however the provisions of this code shall apply regardless of the date of the marriage, besides under Article 256 of the Family Code, said Article is given retroactive effects in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws this is particularly true with Article 40 which is a rule of Procedure, herein respondent has not shown any vested rights that was impaired by the application of Article 40 ti his case.

*The ratio decidendi is "the point in a case which determines the judgment"[1] or "the principle which the case establishes" An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make

conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such laws are also known by the Latin term in mitius. A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation is no longer applicable to situations to which it previously was, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of such laws is called Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, especially in European Continental systems. Some common-law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred before the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom,ex post facto laws are technically possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. In a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited. Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)