GR No.

128448
Petitioners: Spouses Alejandro Mirasol and, Lilia E. Mirasol | Respondents: Court of Appeals,
Philippine National Bank and Philippine Exchange Co. Inc
Ponente: Quisumbing J.
Issue: Who may exercise Judicial Review?

FACTS
 Petitioner spouses are sugar land owners and planters, the petitioners entered a loan financing
scheme through chattel and real estate mortgages by the Philippine National Bank (PNB). PNB
was then authorized to negotiate and sell the sugar produced to pay the obligations of the
Petitioners. However, Philippine Exchange was authorized under Presidential Decree. 579 to
purchase the sugar allotted for export with the PNB. Petitioners then requested PNB to do an
accounting which PNB failed to comply, after which the petitioners conveyed to PNB seven
properties as dacion en pago.
 After reiterating their request, which wasn’t heeded by the PNB. Petitioners filed a Civil Case for
accounting, specific performance and damages against PNB. As petitioners argue that if the
proceeds of their sugar sales are properly accounted for, would offset their obligations with
PNB.
 The parties then agreed to limit the case within the following issues:
o The constitutionality and or legality of PD 338, 579 and 1992
o The determination of the total amount allegedly due the plaintiffs from the defendants
correspondence to the alleged unliquidated cost price of export sugar…..
 The REGIONAL TRIAL COURT then ruled the following
o PD 579 including its circulars, policies, orders and other issuances are unconstitutional
and therefore NULL and VOID
 Petitioners then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals as the Regional Trial Court did not nullify
the dacion en pago and the mortgage contracts. The Court of Appeals then REVERSED the ruling
of the trial court. Which prompted the petitioners to bring the case to the Supreme Court with
the following issues.

Issues
 Whether the Regional Trial Court has the jurisdiction to declare a statute unconstitutional
 Whether the Presidential Decree 579 and its issuances are unconstitutional

Ruling
 The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and assailed the decision of
 The Supreme Court ruled that Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider
the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree or executive order.
 Furthermore, the Supreme Court added that “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”
which was held in J.M. Tuason and Co. v. Court of Appeals 3 SCRA 696 (1961)
 Petitioners also argued that P.D No. 579 violated the due process clause of Article 3 Section 1 of
the 1987 constitution, as they argued that the said P.D took private property without due process
of law, which they asked the Supreme Court to exercise their power of Judicial Review.
 However, the court cited the following requisites for the exercise of judicial review:
1. There must be before the Court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial review.
 2. Second, the question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication.
3. Third, the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge
4. Fourth, the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity
and
5. Lastly, the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota1 of the case.
 The Supreme then added that the requirement of the last requirement which is the issue of
constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case isn’t present. Therefore, they cannot rule on the
Presidential Decree in question.

1
A dispute that has begun and alter forms the basis of a law suit Black's Law 9th Edition, 2009