Case Digest (G.R. No. 143435-36)
Facts:
THE PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE cancelled the lifetime pension of BRIGIDA V. SEGUNDO, widow of a World War II veteran, which had been approved effective April, 1947, on November 1, 1951 because she was receiving a similar benefit from the U.S. Veterans Administration; she remained unremarried. The trial court on September 29, 1975 directed restoration of pension effective November 1, 1951 pursuant to Republic Act No. 65, the respondent filed a petition for mandamus, and the matter was certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals as raising pure questions of law.
Issues:
- Did Segundo’s action to compel restoration of her monthly pension prescribe?
- Does Del Mar v. The Philippine Veterans Administration apply to this case and to non-parties?
- Does mandamus lie here in the absence of a prior administrative demand and contrary to Board of Administration, Philippine Veterans Administration v. Agcaoili?
Ruling:
The Court dismissed the petition of THE PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE and ordered restoration of respondent’s monthly pension, with increments as provided by law, effective November 1, 1951, with costs against the petitioner. The Court held that the action had not prescribed, that Del Mar applied to this case including non-parties, and that mandamus was available without prior administrative demand; Agcaoili did not preclude relief because funding for the resumed pensions was covered under Republic Act No. 65.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that prescription under Civil Code, art. 1144, par. 2 runs from the moment the right of action accrues and that the 1951 cancellation enjoyed presumptive validity so no cause of action arose until this Court declared the policy invalid in Del Mar on June 27, 1973; the petition filed February 28, 1974 was therefore timely. The Court further held that Supreme Court decisions are universally binding per Civil Code, art. 8, so Del Mar nullifying the PVA rule applied to non-parties, and that when a case involves solely legal questions a prior administrative demand or exhaustion of remedies is not required; Agcaoili was distinguishable because it concerned payment contingent on appropriation, while pension resumption here was authorized by existing law and appropriations under Republic Act No. 65.
Doctrine:
- Prescription for an action to compel restoration of pension runs from the date a challenged policy is judicially declared invalid, not from the date of administrative cancellation.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)