Substantive Law: Law which CREATES, DEFINES, or REGULATES rights concerning life, liberty or property, or the power of agencies

or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. Creates a substantive right. IN CRIMINAL LAW: Substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them. -

ISSUE Whether or not RA 1199 should apply retroactively. HELD NO. Though the statute lays down a procedural requirement in which the landlord may dispossess a tenant, and giving jurisdiction to the industrial court, IT SHALL NOT ME CONSIDERED A PROCEDURAL LAW, but a SUBSTANTIVE LAW. Therefore, RA No. 1199, a substantive law, shall be applied prospectively. Legal Basis: Article 4, Civil Code, Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. Legal Maxim: Lex prospicit, non respicit

Construction of Substantive Laws: Substantive laws shall be applied prospectively. REASON: It may not be construed retroactively without affecting previous rights or obligations. In order to determine whether a statute is procedural or substantive is based on whether there is a vested right or if it merely affects the judicial process. Substantive laws shall be applied prospectively, while remedial laws shall be applied retroactively and are applicable to pending actions during its passage. If it affects a vested right, it is a substantive law. (i.e. right to appeal, vesting a court to have additional jurisdiction) If the statute simply operates as a means of implementing an existing right, it is a procedural or remedial law. (i.e. transferring the venue of appeal) Tolentino v. Alzate G.R. No. L-9267 April 11, 1956 Bautista Angelo, J. FACTS Antonio O. Alzate, as manager of a hacienda located in the municipalities of Nampicuan and Guimba, Nueva Ecija. Filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations to lay-off 19 tenants to enable him to introduce a mechanization program which shall increase production at lower costs. Petition was filed on 12 August 1954 Tenants believed that he has done this to create an atmosphere of fear among them who previously had filed a claim against the hacienda seeking certain improvements in their tenancy relation. During the pendency of the case, RA 1199 was approved (on 30 August 1954) which governed the relations of landlords and tenants of agricultural lands, and provided for mechanized farming as one of the causes for the dispossession of a tenant. -

Effects on Pending Actions A statute which affects the substantive rights may not be given retroactive application [in the absence of a clear legislative intent]. No retroactive operation on statutes when it affects pending actions or proceedings. Espiritu v. Cipriano G.R. No. L-32743 February 15, 1974 Esguerra, J. FACTS The case originated as one for unlawful detainer instituted on May 30, 1969, by plaintiffs, now petitioners, in the Municipal Court of Pasig, Rizal, against private respondent Ricardo Cipriano for the latter's alleged failure to pay rentals. On July 13, 1970, respondent moved to dismiss petitioner's complaint, invoking the prohibitory provision of Republic Act 6126, entitled "An Act To Regulate Rentals of Dwelling Units or of Land On Which Another's Dwelling Is Located For One Year And Penalizing Violations Thereof. Case was filed on: May 30, 1969 Statute in question approved and took effect on: June 17, 1970 ISSUE Whether or not the clause implied retroactivity of substantive law.

HELD No. The statute shall only be take effect on the day it was approved and that the rentals from the date expressed in the statute, which is 31 March 1970, shall be the date in which the statute shall be applied. Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 125297 June 6, 2003 Austria-Martinez, J. FACTS Petitioner purchased pieces of jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders, Inc. Due to her failure to pay the purchase price, the company filed civil cases against her for specific performance before the RTC of Pasig. On September 17, 1990, petitioner, through the general manager, Joaquin Novales III entered into a compromise agreement to settle said civil cases. The case was filed on 1992 October 5, and the statute, RA 7691 took effect on 1994 June 15. ISSUE Whether or not appellate court was mistaken in not granting retroactive effect to RA 7691 in view of Art 22 of the RPC. HELD No. RA 7691 is not a penal law and therefore, Art 22 of the RPC does not apply in the present case. RA 7691 is a law that vests additional jurisdiction on courts, thus, it is substantive. The court further held that it cannot be given retroactive effect. -

Municipality of Sta. Fe v. Municipality of Aritao G.R. No. 140474 September 21, 2007 Azcuna, J. FACTS In 16 October 1980, petitioner filed before the RTC of Bayombong Civil Case No. 2821 for the Determination of Boundary Dispute involving the barangays of Bantinan and Canabuan. According to RA 6128, which took effect on 1970 June 17, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan have jurisdiction over municipal boundary disputes. (xxx provincial boards of the provinces in which such municipalities are situated xxx) This statutes was repealed by BP 337 which is the LGC of 1983 (xxx the Court of First Instance of the Province where the municipalities concerned are situated xxx) And later on repealed by RA 7160 or better known as the LGC of 1991. (xxx sangguniang panlalawigan concerned xxx) ISSUE Whether or not there should be retroactive application of the Local Government Code of 1991 and the 1987 Constitution. HELD No. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan is vested with the right to try cases on municipal boundary disputes when the operative law was RA 6128. The subsequent laws that repealed the aforementioned statute, including the 1987 Constitution, shall be applied prospectively. Though losing jurisdiction over the case at bar, the appellate courts may still review the decision so that there shall be no substantial prejudice is caused, despite non-retroactivity.

Qualification of Rule A substantive law will only be construed as applicable to pending actions if that is the clear intent of the law; or If the law itself, for the promotion of social justice, is intended to apply to pending actions. The general rule is that a pending case shall be decided in the light of the law which exists at the time. If a law is passed affecting the case at bar, with the clear intention to be applied retroactively, then it shall apply as such even if it results to the reversal of a judgment. As long as it does not impair vested rights.

Statutes affecting vested rights Rights are vested when the right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some particular person/s, as a present interest. Right is absolute, complete and unconditional, independent of contingency. Therefore, a statute may not be applied retroactively if it impairs a substantive right, or if creates obligations, rather than creating new rights. But if the new law that creates a new right in favor of a class of persons and collides or impairs with a vested right before its creation, then it cannot be given retroactive application.