Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982
DEVELOPMENT !N" O# T$E P$%L%PP%NES, petitioner, vs.T$E COURT O#
!PPE!LS, $ON. $ERMOGENES C!LU!G, &UDGE O# T$E COURT O# #%RST
%NST!NCE O# R%'!L, ()* SPOUSES $ONESTO G. N%C!NDRO ()* EL%S! #.
N%C!NDRO, respondents.

R E S O ! " I O N

!RREDO, J.:
Motion for reconsideration filed b# respondent spouses see$in% reversal of Our decision
of &ebruar# '(, )*(+ ,hich overturned the decision of the Court of -ppeals in C-./.R.
No. 012)(.E, entitled Honesto G. Nicandro, et al. vs. Development Bank of the
Philippines, et al., affir3in% the 4ud%3ent of the Court of &irst Instance of Ri5al upholdin%
the ri%ht of said private respondents over t,o lots ,hich the# had purchased fro3 the
then Philippine 6o3esite and 6ousin% Corporation, no, National 6ousin% -uthorit#, to
be referred to later in the opinion onl# as P66C, ,hich appear to have been a3on% )1*
lots purportedl# covered alread# b# an earlier sales a%ree3ent bet,een the said
housin% corporation, on the one hand, and the Develop3ent 7an$ of the Philippines
hereinafter to be referred to as 7an$, on the other.
"o be 3ore specific, the bac$%round facts relevant to the 3otion for reconsideration no,
before !s e8tant in the records and in Our decision sou%ht to be reconsidered are as
follo,s9
On October '1, )*11 the 7an$ entered into an a%ree3ent of sale to it b# the P66C of
)1* conti%uous lots havin% a total area of *),)((.0+ s:uare 3eters located in the
Dili3an Estate Subdivision ;est "rian%le, <ue5on Cit#, pa#in% the3 a do,n pa#3ent of
P2++,+++.++ of the P(+',)11.1= stipulated purchase price. 6o,ever, the sale could not
be then re%istered because the subdivision plan of the area ,as still pendin% approval.
"he fore%oin% transaction not,ithstandin%, on October )2, )*1(, the then -ctin%
/eneral Mana%er of the P66C, Ser%io Orti5, approved an order of sale of lots Nos. '
and 2, ,hich ,ere a3on% the above )1*, to private respondent spouses, the Nicandros.
On Nove3ber >, )*1(, t,o deeds of sale, one in favor of the husband and another in
favor of the ,ife, ,ere prepared b# the Sales Division of the P66C evidentl# upon
orders of hi%her authorities thereof, and sub3itted to and approved b# the 7oard of
Directors, after ,hich it ,as si%ned b# /eneral Mana%er 7ernardo "orres. &or reasons
not appearin% in the record, the ori%inals of those deeds ,ere retained at the P66C
office.
-t this 4uncture, it 3ust be stated that ,hen -ctin% /eneral Mana%er Orti5 approved the
order of sale, and that ,as before the board and /eneral Mana%er "orres acted, their
subordinates pointedl# infor3ed hi3 as ,ell as the board and "orres later that the t,o
lots then bein% sold to the Nicandros ,ere a3on% the )1* lots involved in the transaction
,ith the 7an$.
On ?anuar# )1, )*1*, the sales a%ree3ent bet,een the P66C and the 7an$ ,as
entered in the da# boo$ of the Office of the Re%ister of Deeds of <ue5on Cit# as a @sale
of an unse%re%ated portionA ne, titles to be issued upon presentation of the
correspondin% subdivision plan and technical descriptions dul# approved b# the
authorities.@ BE8hibit )1C -t that ti3e, the title over the lots ,as "C" )01=.
On their part, on &ebruar# )=, )*1*, the Nicandros sou%ht to re%ister their si%ned
duplicate cop# of the sale to the3, but the Re%ister of Deeds de3urred because
precisel#, the ori%inal ,as not presented, apart fro3 the o3ission to sub3it the consent
of the /SIS, then the 3ort%a%ee of the propert#, and for lac$ of the re:uired
docu3entar# sta3ps. On the follo,in% da#, &ebruar# )>, )*1* the 7an$ nonetheless
re%istered affidavits of adverse clai3s on lots ' and 2. "his ,as done alread# on "C"
0=100 ,hich had replaced "C" )01=.
Such atte3pt of the Nicandros and action b# the 7an$ ,ere spa,ned b# the fact that
evidentl#, the validit# of the transaction bet,een the P66C and the 7an$ had been
earlier :uestioned, for as earl# as ?anuar# '+, )*1*, the Secretar# of ?ustice, upon
re:uest of the E8ecutive Secretar#, rendered an opinion BOpinion No. )=, Series of
)*1*C thus9
B)C Pre3ises considered, it is our opinion that the R&C BD7PC has no e8press or
incidental po,er to underta$e the housin% pro4ect under consideration and that the sa3e
is incon%ruous ,ith, if not a clear violation of, the prohibition contained in Section '0 of
Republic -ct No. (1. B-nne8 @-@, Co3plaint.C
I3portantl#, on &ebruar# )>, )*1*, on the basis of the fore%oin% opinion of the Secretar#
of ?ustice, the Office of the President re:uired the 7an$ to revo$e its resolution
authori5in% the purchase of the P66C lots. B"hat ,as the da# before the Nicandros tried
to re%ister the sale to the3C Still, upon bein% infor3ed that the re:uired subdivision plan
had alread# been dul# recorded on "C" 0=100, the 7an$ forth,ith re:uested, as alread#
stated, the annotation of its sales a%ree3ent, ,hich ,as done.
Subse:uentl#, the 7an$ ,ent a step farther b# as$in% for the issuance of ne, certificates
of title in its favor. "his petition ,as elevated en consulta to the land Re%istration
Co33ission ,hich denied the re:uested re%istration on ?ul# '*, )*1*. 6o,ever, in the
appeal to this Supre3e Court, it ,as held on -pril '*,)*=), in /.R. No. .)=22(, )
SCR- )002, that the annotation 3ade b# the 7an$ on ?anuar# )1, )*1* constituted
sufficient annotation to bind third persons, includin% the Nicandros. 7ut lon% prior to Our
decision, on March )2, )*=+, the Secretar# of ?ustice, ans,erin% a :uer# of the 7an$
,hether the lots could be sold to its e3plo#ees on cash basis ruled ne%ativel# in Opinion
No. 2, series of )*=+.
Matters ,ere at such sta%e, ,hen on ?une )>, )*=), Republic -ct No. 0)2> a3endin%
Section '0 of the Or%anic -ct of the 7an$, Republic -ct (1, ,as approved and beca3e
effective.
1
"he said a3endator# -ct provides9
No officer or e3plo#ee of the ban$ nor an# %overn3ent official ,ho 3a# e8ercise
e8ecutive or supervisor# authorit# over the said ban$ either directl#, or indirectl#, for
hi3self or as representative or a%ent of others shall, e8cept ,hen the sa3e shall be in
the for3 of advances appropriated or set aside b# the 7an$ itself in order to provide for
housin% for the benefit of its officials and e3plo#ees, borro, 3one# fro3 the 7an$, nor
shall beco3e a %uarantor, indorser or suret# for loans fro3 the said ban$ to the others,
or in an# 3anner be an obli%or for 3one#s borro,ed fro3 the said 7an$. -n# such
officer or e3plo#ee ,ho violates the provisions of this section shall be i33ediatel#
re3oved b# co3petent authorit# and said officer or e3plo#ee shall be punished b#
i3prison3ent of not less than one #ear nor e8ceedin% five #ears and b# a fine of not less
than one thousand nor 3ore than five thousand pesos.
"o definitel# clear up 3atters, on Nove3ber )+, )*=), the sub4ect action ,as filed b#
respondent spouses pra#in% for the rescission of the sale to the 7an$ of the t,o lots in
:uestion and the conse:uent cancellation of the 7an$Ds certificate of title thereto, ,ith
da3a%es, alle%in% as their 3ain bases that the said purchase b# the 7an$ ,as not onl#
ultra vires but ille%al, bein% a direct violation of the e8press prohibition of Section )0 of
Republic -ct (1, and as an alternative re3ed#, the# as$ed that the P66C be 3ade to
pa# the3 the @value ,hich said properties 3a# have on the date of the decision. @-fter
due proceedin%s, both the trial court and Court of -ppeals ordered the rescission pra#ed
for, but in Our decision of &ebruar# '(, )*(+, ;e held other,ise, on the sole %round that
the passa%e of Republic -ct 0)2> cured retroactivel# the lac$ of authorit# and violation
of la, relied upon b# those lo,er courts, hence the instant 3otion for reconsideration,
follo,ed b# a supple3ent thereto ,ith the co33ent thereon of petitioner, re4oinder of
respondents, the petitionerDs co33ent on said re4oinder and finall# the sur.re4oinder of
respondents.
"he basic prop of respondentsD plea for reconsideration is that it ,as inappropriate for !s
to appl# in this case the principle of retroactivit#, %iven the peculiar circu3stances of this
case, ,herein, it is clai3ed, it appears that the Nicandros had alread# ac:uired a vested
ri%ht to bu# the lots in controvers# preferentiall# over the 7an$. Indeed, as 3atters stood
at the ti3e of the passa%e, there could be no doubt that the 7an$Ds resolution authori5in%
the purchase in :uestion ,as, if ,ell intentioned as far as the ,elfare of its e3plo#ees
,as concerned, definitel# be#ond the po,ers of said board, if not on its face, 3ore
i3portantl# in its intention. It is an undeniable fact that the 3one# appropriated in the
resolution ,as to be used to pa# the P66C for the account of the respective e3plo#ees
,ho ,ould be luc$# to be a,arded a lot, ,ith the obli%ation on their part of pa#in% the
7an$ in periodic install3ents. In substance and in truth, such an arran%e3ent a3ounted
to each e3plo#ee concerned borro,in% or %ettin% a loan fro3 the ban$. "his concept of
the transaction is assu3ed b# both parties as the plain unvarnished ob4ective of the
resolution. -nd such bein% the factual situation ,hose le%alit# or validit# ;e ,ere called
upon to deter3ine, respondents 3aintain that in a ,a# Our decision evaded the real
issue or failed to pass upon the pertinent ra3ifications and i3plications of the
retroactivit# theor# on ,hich the sa3e ,as solel# based.
-fter revie,in% 3ore carefull# and 3aturel# the 4uridical roots of this controvers# in the
li%ht of the ar%u3ents adduced b# the parties relative to respondentsD 3otion for
reconsideration, ;e feel persuaded that indeed Our decision ,as inco3plete in the
sense that ;e did not e8a3ine and rule on the relevant aspects of the retroactivit#
theor# ;e applied.
"o start ,ith, ;e assu3ed ,ithout an# evidentiar# basis that Republic -ct 2)0> ,as
purposel# intended to re3ed# the proble3 that the facts of this case had spa,ned.
Nothin% in the record indicates that evidence ,as introduced in such re%ard, thus
3a$in% Our rulin% 3ore or less a 3ere sur3ise or inference, :uite lo%ical as it 3i%ht be
in co33on sense. 7ut ,ho could $no, that the le%islature so intended, considerin% that
it is a fa3iliar rule of statutor# construction that %enerall# all la,s are intended to be
prospective in their effect unless there are e8press provisions to the contrar#E "hus,
-rticle 2 of the Civil Code ordains e8plicitl# that la,s @ have no retroactive effect, unless
the contrar# is provided. @
-s if to avoid the natural lo%ical conse:uence of this provision of the Civil Code 4ust
:uoted, Our decision resorted to a shade of the theor# of retroactivit# and held that the
intention of Republic -ct 0)2> ,as curative, holdin% that curative la,s @ are for3s of
retrospective le%islationBsC ,hich reach bac$ on past events and ,hich ,ould be
other,ise ineffective for the purpose the parties intended9 . "he# thus 3a$e valid that
,hich before enact3ent of the statute ,as invalid,@ footnotin% said proposition ,ith three
-3erican decisions, not one of the3 of the &ederal Court.
7ut as ;e see it no,, at best, the holdin%s ;e have :uoted are %eneral principles to be
applied onl# in the appropriate cases ,herein their peculiar respective circu3stances
per3it. On the other hand, the above.:uoted -rticle 2 of our Civil Code is une:uivocal
and definite, leavin% no roo3 for doubt as to its application. Corollaril#, no court decision,
3uch less of an# forei%n one can alter such 3andate. -nd, indeed, in this connection, it
3a# be pointed out that ,hereas the Old Civil Code provision B-rticle 0C correspondin%
to ,hat is -rticle 2 no, ,as follo,ed i33ediatel# b# its -rticle 2 providin% that9
-cts perfor3ed contrar# to la, are void, e8cept in cases in ,hich the la, itself %ives
validit# to such acts.
Ri%hts %ranted b# la, 3a# be ,aived, provided such ,aiver be not contrar# to public
interest or public order, or pre4udicial to a third person.
;hile the second para%raph of said old -rticle 2 per3itted the ,aiver of ri%hts %ranted
b# la,, such as perhaps the non.retroactivit# under -rticle 2, in our ne, Civil Code,
under its -rticle )2+*, it is 3ade clear that @contracts . e8pressl# prohibited b# la, or
declared void b# la, @ are @ ine8istent and void fro3 the be%innin%@ and @cannot be
ratified,@ thereb# 3a$in% e3phatic that as far as prohibitor# la,s are concerned, their
invalidit# is not ,aivable. In the instant case, Section '0 of Republic -ct (1 cannot but
be considered as 3andatoril# prohibitor#, containin% as it does heav# penal sanctions
for its violations. Conse:uentl#, considerin% that the contract bet,een the P66C and the
7an$ of October '1, )*11 ,as void fro3 its inception bein% e8pressl# prohibited b# la,,
P66C could not have ,aived such invalidit# and ,as therefore, free to disen%a%e itself
therefro3 as if it did not e8ist. No court action ,as necessar# in that respect. BParas,
Civil Code of the Philippines -nnotated, Vol . IV, p. 11+,)*=> ed.C
;hat is 3ore, in addition to the above %eneral principles, since ,hat is involved here is a
contractual 3atter, reference to the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code on contracts is
even 3ore co3pellin% in its repudiation of the a%ree3ent here at issue. -s alread#
stated above, -rticle )2+* declares as @ ine8istent and void fro3 the be%innin%.
BcontractsC e8pressl# prohibited or declared void b# la,@ BNo. >C and further, that such
contractBsC cannot be ratified.@ Blast para%raphC
Of course, -rticle )2)) provides that @,hen the nullit# proceeds fro3 the ille%alit# of the
cause or ob4ect of the contract, and the act constitutes a cri3inal offense, both parties
bein% in pari delicto, the# shall have no action a%ainst each other, and both shall be
prosecuted.@ In the case at bar, ho,ever, it is neither the cause nor the ob4ect that is
ille%al, rather it is the ob4ective as alread# e8plained earlier. More, ;e are i3pressed
that the prohibition a%ainst an officer or e3plo#ee to borro, 3one# fro3 the e3plo#er .
ban$ is intrinsicall# a%ainst public polic# and not 3erel# ille%al b# statutor# precept. ;e
have alread# held that the doctrine of in pari delicto cannot be invo$ed ,hen to disallo,
the ille%al transaction ,ould enhance public polic#. BPhilippine 7an$in% vs. ui She, ')
SCR- 1'A Rellosa vs. /a, Chee 6un, *0 Phil. ('>C
o%icall# and corrolaril#, the deprivation of an# ri%ht of action to the P66C vis.a.vis the
7an$ does not carr# ,ith it the loss of the ri%ht of action b# a third part# ,ho precisel#
predicated his transaction on the ver# pre3ise that the a%ree3ent bet,een the 7an$
and P66C ,as non.e8istent, hence his priorit# over the prohibited part# or the 7an$. If
the P66C itself is not barred b# pari delicto, 3uch less could respondents covered
thereb#. Indeed, it ,ould be un4ust, unfair and ine:uitable to deprive respondents of the
ri%ht that clearl# belon%ed to the3 to deal ,ith the P66C ,ho at the ti3e of the
transaction ,as not onl# %uided b# opinions of the Secretar# of ?ustice but totall#
disen%a%ed fro3 its a%ree3ent ,ith the 7an$ b# the directive of the President declarin%
the ille%alit# and 4uridical non.e8istence of the transaction bet,een it and the 7an$. In
si3ple ter3s, at the ti3e the Nicandros dealt ,ith P66C, and that ,as after the
Secretar# of ?ustice had %iven his adverse opinion and the president had ordered the
7an$ to cancel its purchase resolution, and even 3uch lon%er before Republic -ct 2)0>
,as passed, the latter ,as entirel# free to act as it did, and then and there, the vested
ri%ht of said respondents ,as born. So, even if it ,ere 4uridicall# possible to sustain
%enerall# that -rticles 2, 1 and )2+* of the Civil Code BNe,C could be rendered
ineffective b# a la, enacted after an ille%al transaction has alread# been entered into b#
certain parties, as a curative statute, a point ;e do not have to decide here, it is %ravel#
doubtful if the theor# of curative retroactiveness could be applied here, considerin% that
the result in such a case ,ould be violative of the constitutional in4unction a%ainst
deprivation of vested ri%hts born of contracts the obli%ations under ,hich ,ould be
i3paired. B-rticle IV, Section )), Constitution of the PhilippinesC
-t this 4uncture, it 3a# be added that the decision of this Court in /.R. No. .)=2(( of
-pril '*, )*=), ) SCR- )0002 above . referred to 3a# not be availed of b# petitioner
7an$, not onl# because the validit# of the purchase here in controvers# ,as not 3ade an
issue, 3uch less passed upon there, but also because, the P66C, instead of ratif#in%
the sa3e repudiated it b# transactin% ,ith respondents Nicandros over the sa3e sub4ect
3atter. In a sense, ;e feel that the bad faith i3puted b# !s to the respondents in Our
decision ,as rather uncalled for, since the :uestionable character of the sale to the 7an$
had alread# been passed upon b# authoritative officials ,hen the# dealt ,ith the P66C.
It no, onl# re3ains for us to hold as ;e do hold that Republic -ct 02)> contained no
provision i3partin% to it retroactive effect and inas3uch as, for the considerations
alread# discussed above, BaC it is not onl# that the contract bet,een the 7an$ and the
P66C could not be ratified but BbC that P66C could not ,aive the ille%alit# thereof, it is
4uridicall# absurd to %ive curative character to said le%islation. ;e reiterate that the rules
of statutor# construction on curative retroactivit# referred to in Our decision do not
s:uarel# appl# to the instant situation.
"he 7an$ insists onl# no, that the contract ,as not violative of even the ori%inal -rticle
'0 afore:uoted because there is no sho,in% that an# e3plo#ee of the 7an$ even
borro,ed fro3 the 7an$. Such contention overloo$s convenientl# the fact that as ;e
have said earlier, the evident intent and purpose of the purchase ,as to resell the land
to the e3plo#ees on install3ent. 7esides, if such late ar%u3ent had an# basis, of ,hat
use then ,as their invocation of Republic -ct 2)0> as curativeE ;hat ,ould have been
there to cureE
IN VIE; O& - "6E &ORE/OIN/, ;e are constrained to resolve, as ;e do hereb#
resolve, to reconsider and set aside Our decision in this case of &ebruar# '(, )*(+, and
in lieu thereof, ;e hereb# render 4ud%3ent den#in% the petition for revie,, ,ithout costs.
I" IS SO ORDERED.
Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and scolin, !!., concur.
A"uino, !., took no part.

#oot)ote+
) Section '0 of Republic -ct (1 ori%inall# read thus9 @No officer or e3plo#ee of the ban$
nor an# %overn3ent official ,ho 3a# e8ercise e8ecutive or supervisor# authorit# over
the said ban$ either directl#, or indirectl#, for hi3self or as representative or a%ent of
others shall borro, 3one# fro3 the 7an$, nor shall beco3e a %uarantor, indorser or
suret# for loans fro3 the said ban$ to the others, or in an# 3anner be an obli%or for
3one#s borro,ed fro3 the said 7an$. -n# such officer or e3plo#ee ,ho violates the
provisions of this section shall be i33ediatel# re3oved b# co3petent authorit# and said
officer or e3plo#ee shall be punished b# i3prison3ent of not less than one #ear nor
e8ceedin% five #ears and b# a fine of not less than one thousand nor 3ore than five
thousand pesos.
/.R. No .'(>>2 Septe3ber '), )*('
DEVELOPMENT !N" O# T$E P$%L%PP%NES, petitioner, vs.T$E COURT O#
!PPE!LS, $ON. $ERMOGENES C!LU!G, &UDGE O# T$E COURT O# #%RST
%NST!NCE O# R%'!L, ()* SPOUSES $ONESTO G. N%C!NDRO ()* EL%S! #.
N%C!NDRO, respondents.
&-C"S9
). Respondent spouses filed for 3otion for reconsideration see$in% for the reversal
of the Supre3e Courts decision of &ebruar# '(, )*(+ ,hich overturned the
decision of the Court of -ppeals in C-./.R. No. 012)(.E, entitled Honesto G.
Nicandro, et al. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al., affir3in% the
4ud%3ent of the Court of &irst Instance of Ri5al upholdin% the ri%ht of said private
respondents over t,o lots ,hich the# had purchased fro3 the then Philippine
6o3esite and 6ousin% Corporation, ,hich appear to have been a3on% )1* lots
purportedl# covered alread# b# an earlier sales a%ree3ent bet,een the said
housin% corporation, on the one hand, and the Develop3ent 7an$ of the
Philippines hereinafter to be referred to as 7an$, on the other.
'. On October '1, )*11 D7P bou%ht *), )((.0+ s:uare 3eters of land, consistin%
of )1* lots located in the proposed lot of P66C at Dili3an Estate Subdivision,
;est "rian%le, <ue5on Cit# pa#in% the3 a do,n pa#3ent of P 2++,+++ of the P
(+', )11.1= stipulated purchase price. 6o,ever, ots ' and 2, ,hich for3 part
of the )1* lots bou%ht b# D7P ,ere sold and approved b# then -ctin% /eneral
-ctin% Mana%er of P66C Ser%io Orti5 to private respondent spouses, the
Nicandros on October )2, )*1(.
0. !pon learnin% of P66CFs previous transaction ,ith D7P, the private respondent
spouses filed a co3plaint a%ainst D7P and the P66C to reverse the sale of ots
' and 2 b# the P66C in favor of D7P. "he Court held that the sale of ots ' and
2, to D7P is null and void, for bein% in violation of Section '0 of R.-. (1, D7P
Charter Bori%inall# Section )0, renu3bered b# R- '+().C
ISS!E9
1. ;hether D7P is held liable in violation of the Section '0, of Republic -ct (1E
6ED9
In reference to the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code on contracts is even 3ore
co3pellin% in its repudiation of the a%ree3ent here at issue. -s stated, -rticle )2+*
declares as @ ine8istent and void fro3 the be%innin%. BcontractsC e8pressl# prohibited or
declared void b# la,@ BNo. >C and further, that such contractBsC cannot be ratified.@
@,hen the nullit# proceeds fro3 the ille%alit# of the cause or ob4ect of the contract,
and the act constitutes a cri3inal offense, both parties bein% in pari delicto, the# shall
have no action a%ainst each other, and both shall be prosecuted.@ In the case at bar,
ho,ever, it is neither the cause nor the ob4ect that is ille%al, rather it is the ob4ective as
alread# e8plained earlier. More, ;e are i3pressed that the prohibition a%ainst an officer
or e3plo#ee to borro, 3one# fro3 the e3plo#er . ban$ is intrinsicall# a%ainst public
polic# and not 3erel# ille%al b# statutor# precept. ;e have alread# held that the doctrine
of in pari delicto cannot be invo$ed ,hen to disallo, the ille%al transaction ,ould
enhance public polic#.
o%icall# and corrolaril#, the deprivation of an# ri%ht of action to the P66C vis.a.vis the
7an$ does not carr# ,ith it the loss of the ri%ht of action b# a third part# ,ho precisel#
predicated his transaction on the ver# pre3ise that the a%ree3ent bet,een the 7an$
and P66C ,as non.e8istent, hence his priorit# over the prohibited part# or the 7an$. If
the P66C itself is not barred b# pari delicto, 3uch less could respondents covered
thereb#. Indeed, it ,ould be un4ust, unfair and ine:uitable to deprive respondents of the
ri%ht that clearl# belon%ed to the3 to deal ,ith the P66C ,ho at the ti3e of the
transaction ,as not onl# %uided b# opinions of the Secretar# of ?ustice but totall#
disen%a%ed fro3 its a%ree3ent ,ith the 7an$ b# the directive of the President declarin%
the ille%alit# and 4uridical non.e8istence of the transaction bet,een it and the 7an$. In
si3ple ter3s, at the ti3e the Nicandros dealt ,ith P66C, and that ,as after the
Secretar# of ?ustice had %iven his adverse opinion and the president had ordered the
7an$ to cancel its purchase resolution, and even 3uch lon%er before Republic -ct 2)0>
,as passed, the latter ,as entirel# free to act as it did, and then and there, the vested
ri%ht of said respondents ,as born. So, even if it ,ere 4uridicall# possible to sustain
%enerall# that !rt,-.e+ 4, / ()* 1409 o1 t2e C,3,. Co*e 4Ne56 -o7.* be re)*ere*
,)e11e-t,3e b8 ( .(5 e)(-te* (1ter () ,..e9(. tr()+(-t,o) 2(+ (.re(*8 bee) e)tere*
,)to b8 -ert(,) p(rt,e+, (+ ( -7r(t,3e +t(t7te, ( po,)t :e *o )ot 2(3e to *e-,*e
2ere, ,t ,+ 9r(3e.8 *o7bt17. ,1 t2e t2eor8 o1 -7r(t,3e retro(-t,3e)e++ -o7.* be
(pp.,e* 2ere, -o)+,*er,)9 t2(t t2e re+7.t ,) +7-2 ( -(+e 5o7.* be 3,o.(t,3e o1 t2e
-o)+t,t7t,o)(. ,);7)-t,o) (9(,)+t *epr,3(t,o) o1 3e+te* r,92t+ bor) o1 -o)tr(-t+ t2e
ob.,9(t,o)+ 7)*er 52,-2 5o7.* be ,mp(,re*.
It no, onl# re3ains for us to hold as ;e do hold that Republic -ct 02)> contained no
provision i3partin% to it retroactive effect and inas3uch as, for the considerations
alread# discussed above, BaC it is not onl# that the contract bet,een the 7an$ and the
P66C could not be ratified but BbC that P66C could not ,aive the ille%alit# thereof, it is
4uridicall# absurd to %ive curative character to said le%islation. ;e reiterate that the rules
of statutor# construction on curative retroactivit# referred to in Our decision do not
s:uarel# appl# to the instant situation.
"he 7an$ insists onl# no, that the contract ,as not violative of even the ori%inal -rticle
'0 afore:uoted because there is no sho,in% that an# e3plo#ee of the 7an$ even
borro,ed fro3 the 7an$. Such contention overloo$s convenientl# the fact that as ;e
have said earlier, the evident intent and purpose of the purchase ,as to resell the land
to the e3plo#ees on install3ent. 7esides, if such late ar%u3ent had an# basis, of ,hat
use then ,as their invocation of Republic -ct 2)0> as curativeE ;hat ,ould have been
there to cureE
CO!R" DECISION9 Petition denied.