Scribd
Upload
90 views

Facts: The Mirasols Are Sugarland Owners and Planters. Philippine National Bank

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a dispute between sugar planters (the Mirasols) and the Philippine National Bank (PNB) over financing of sugar production and proceeds from sugar exports. The key points are: 1) The Mirasols took out loans from PNB to finance sugar production which were secured by mortgages on their land and crops. President Marcos later issued a decree directing export sale proceeds to go to the government. 2) The Mirasols sued PNB seeking an accounting of export proceeds, believing them sufficient to offset their debts. PNB claimed the decree meant it did not have to account for proceeds. 3) The Court held

Uploaded by

Sandra SE
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
90 views

Facts: The Mirasols Are Sugarland Owners and Planters. Philippine National Bank

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding a dispute between sugar planters (the Mirasols) and the Philippine National Bank (PNB) over financing of sugar production and proceeds from sugar exports. The key points are: 1) The Mirasols took out loans from PNB to finance sugar production which were secured by mortgages on their land and crops. President Marcos later issued a decree directing export sale proceeds to go to the government. 2) The Mirasols sued PNB seeking an accounting of export proceeds, believing them sufficient to offset their debts. PNB claimed the decree meant it did not have to account for proceeds. 3) The Court held

Uploaded by

Sandra SE
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1

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 authorizing Philippine 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.

2



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