Kasilag v.

Rodriguez AUTHOR: Padrones, Mark

[69 PHIL 217]
TOPIC: Ignorance of the law
PONENTE: Imperial, J.

FACTS: The parties, Kasilag and Emiliana Rodriguez, entered into a contract of mortgage of the improvements
on the land acquired as homestead to secure the payment of the indebtedness for P1,000 plus interest.
One year after the execution of the mortgage deed, it came to pass that Emiliana Ambrosio was unable to
pay the stipulated interest as well as the tax on the land and its improvements. For this reason, she and Kasilag
entered into another verbal contract whereby she conveyed to the latter the possession of the land on condition
that the latter would not collect the interest on the loan, would attend to the payment of the land tax, would
benefit by the fruits of the land, and would introduce improvements thereon.
Respondents, Rafaela Rodriguez, et. al., children and heirs of the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio,
commenced a civil case to recover from the petitioner the possession of the land and its improvements granted
by the way of homestead to Emiliana Ambrosio.
The CA held that petitioner acted in Bad Faith in taking possession of the land because he knew that the
contract he made with Emiliana Ambrosio was an absolute sale, and that the latter could not sell the land
because it is prohibited by Sec. 116 of Act 2874.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner should be deemed a possessor in Good Faith because he was unaware of any flaw in
his title or in the manner of its acquisition by which it is invalidated.

HELD: The petitioner’s ignorance of the provisions of sec. 116 is excusable and may be the basis of Good Faith.
RATIO: Gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law may not be the basis of Good Faith but excusable ignorance
may be such basis (if it based upon ignorance of a fact). In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he
proceeded on the well-grounded belief that he was not violating rhe prohibition regarding the alienation of the
land. In taking possession thereof and in consenting to receive the fruits, he did not know that the possession and
enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of the contract of antichresis and that the latter, as alien, was prohibited by
Sec. 116.
Simon v. Chan AUTHOR: Padrones, Mark
[G.R. No. 157547]
TOPIC: Retroactivity of Laws
PONENTE: Bersamin, J.

FACTS: Eduardo Simon was charged by Elvin Chan of violating BP 22.

Chan then commenced a civil action in the MeTC for the collection of the principal amount.
Dec. 1, 2000, Rule 111, Sec. 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure became effective

ISSUE(s): WON Chan’s civil action to recover the amount of the unfunded check was an independent civil action.

HELD: No

RATIO: No vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws. Any new rules may validly be made to apply to
cases pending at the time of their promulgation, considering that no party to an action has a vested right in the rules of
procedure, except that in criminal cases, the changes do not retroactively apply if they permit or require a lesser quantum
of evidence to convict than what us required at the time of the commission of the offenses, because such retroactivity
would be unconstitutional for being ex post facto under the Constitution.
-