264 scra 711

No retroactive effect if vested rights are impaired

On March 7, 1983, a complaint for compulsory recognition and enforcement of successional
rights was filed before RTC Manila by the minors Antonia Aruego and alleged the sister
Evelyn Aruego represented by their mother Luz Fabian. The complaint was opposed by the
legitimate children of Jose Aruego Jr.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Antonia Aruego. A petition for certiorari was then
filed alleging that the Family Code of the Philippines which took effect on August 3, 1988
shall have a retroactive effect thereby the trial court lost jurisdiction over the complaint on
the ground of prescription.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Family Code shall have a retroactive effect in the case.
HELD: The Supreme Court upheld that the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect in
so far as the instant case is concerned as its application will prejudice the vested rights of
respondents to have her case be decided under Article 285 of the Civil Code. It is a well
settled reception that laws shall have a retroactive effect unless it would impair vested
rights. Therefore, the Family Code in this case cannot be given a retroactive effect.