RETROACTIVITY OF LAWS (ARTICLE 4, CIVIL CODE)

Date Published:
PROVISION:

Article 4 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

CODAL TEXT:

Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.

REPHRASING:

Generally, laws apply only to actions and events that occur after the law has taken effect. This means that a new law typically cannot be applied to situations that happened before the law was enacted. However, there is an exception to this rule. A law can specifically state that it is intended to have a retroactive effect. In such cases, the law will also apply to past actions or events, as explicitly indicated within the law itself. Therefore, the default is that laws are prospective, meaning they look forward. Retroactive application only occurs when the law itself clearly states this intention but such application cannot violate the constitutional proscription on ex post facto laws.

RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE:
  1. [ G.R. No. 189649. April 20, 2015 ] ADORACION CAROLINO (SPOUSE AND IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE DECEASED JEREMIAS A. CAROLINO), PETITIONER, VS. GEN. GENEROSO SENGA, AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP); BRIG. GEN. FERNANDO ZABAT, AS CHIEF OF THE AFP FINANCE CENTER; COMMO. REYNALDO BASILIO, AS CHIEF OF THE AFP-GHQ MANAGEMENT AND FISCAL OFFICE; AND COMMO. EMILIO MARAYAG, PENSION AND GRATUITY OFFICER, PENSION AND GRATUITY MANAGEMENT CENTER, AFP FINANCE CENTER, RESPONDENTS.
  2. [ G.R. No. 100776. October 28, 1993 ] ALBINO S. CO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
  3. [ G.R. No. 242781. June 21, 2022 ] SUPERIORA LOCALE DELL' ISTITUTO DELLE SUORE DI SAN GIUSEPPE DEL CABURLOTTO, INC., PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
  4. [ G.R. No. 211353. June 10, 2019 ] WILLIAM G. KWONG MANAGEMENT, INC. AND WILLIAM G. KWONG, PETITIONERS, VS. DIAMOND HOMEOWNERS & RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT.
  5. [ G.R. No. 178306. December 18, 2008 ] FRANCISCO R. NUNGA, JR. AND VICTOR D. NUNGA, PETITIONERS, VS. FRANCISCO N. NUNGA III, RESPONDENT.
  6. [ G.R. NO. 129165. October 30, 2006 ] SPOUSES RODRIGO COLOSO AND ELISA COLOSO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR SON FREDERICK COLOSO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SECRETARY ERNESTO V. GARILAO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN, THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAMAL, PROVINCE OF BATAAN, RESPONDENTS.
  7. [ G.R. No. 142675. July 22, 2005 ] VICENTE AGOTE Y MATOL, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MANUEL F. LORENZO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 43, MANILA AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
  8. [ G.R. No. 149417. June 04, 2004 ] GLORIA SANTOS DUEÑAS, PETITIONER, VS. SANTOS SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT.
  9. [ G.R. No. 133250. May 06, 2003 ] FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY AND AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
  10. [ G. R. No. L-11418. December 27, 1958 ] ROBERTO LAPERAL, JR. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS VS. RAMON L. KATIGBAK, BT AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS:
  1. [CA-G.R. SP No. 162485] FERRER V. CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA.
  2. [CA-G.R. CV NO. 07061] CHIA V. REPUBLIC.
  3. [CA-G.R. CV No. 05765] SALAZAR V. REPUBLIC.
  4. [CA-G.R. SP NO. 12747] HEIRS OF VILLEGAS V. JUDGE AVELLANO.
  5. [CA-G.R. CV NO. 121413] REPUBLIC V. SCIENCE PARK OF THE PHILIPPINES.