EOPLE V.

PUIG AND PORRAS Petitioner explains that under Article 1980 of the New Civil Code,
(Simple Loan) "fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar
Depositors who place their money with the bank are considered institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple
creditors of the bank. The bank acquires ownership of the money
loans." Corollary thereto, Article 1953 of the same Code provides
deposited by its clients, making the money taken by respondents as
belonging to the bank. that "a person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible
The relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the
that of creditor and debtor. Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality." Thus, it
Code, as appropriately pointed out by petitioner, provide as follows: posits that the depositors who place their money with the bank are
Article 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other considered creditors of the bank. The bank acquires ownership of the
fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to money deposited by its clients, making the money taken by
the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality. respondents as belonging to the bank.
Article 1980. (supra)
Issue: Whether or not the Bank acquired ownership of the money
In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited
by its clients; and the employees of the Bank, who are entrusted with deposited in it to be able to hold the respondents liable for qualified
the possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in theft which requires that there must be taking of the money without
them, occupy positions of confidence. The Informations, therefore, the consent of the owners.
sufficiently allege all the essential elements constituting the crime of Held: The petition is meritorious
Qualified Thef Banks where monies are deposited, are considered the owners
G.R. Nos. 173654-765 August 28, 2008 thereof. This is very clear not only from the express provisions of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, law, but from established jurisprudence. The relationship between
vs. banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor.
TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS, respondents. Articles 1953 and 1980 of the New Civil Code, as appropriately
Facts: On 7 November 2005, the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office pointed out by petitioner, provide as follows:
filed before RTC in Dumangas, Iloilo, 112 cases of Qualified Theft Article 1953.A person who receives a loan of money or any other
against respondents Teresita Puig (Puig) and Romeo Porras fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to
(Porras) who were the Cashier and Bookkeeper, respectively, of the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.
private complainant Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc. Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks
It was alleged in the information that Teresita Puig and Romeo and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions
Porras took away P15,000 without the consent of the owner Bank to concerning loan.
the prejudice and damage of the bank. In a long line of cases involving Qualified Theft, the Court has firmly
The RTC dismissed the case for insufficiency of the information established the nature of possession by the Bank of the money
ruling that the real parties in interest are the depositors-clients and deposits therein, and the duties being performed by its employees
not the bank because the bank does not acquire ownership of the who have custody of the money or have come into possession of it.
money deposited in it. The Court has consistently considered the allegations in the
Hence petitioner Rural Bank went directly to the court via petition for Information that such employees acted with grave abuse of
certiorari. confidence, to the damage and prejudice of the Bank, without
particularly referring to it as owner of the money deposits, as BPI claimed that it had a better right to the amounts which consisted of part
sufficient to make out a case of Qualified Theft of the money allegedly fraudulently withdrawn from it by Tevesteco and
In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by
ending up in Francos account. BPI urges us that the legal consequence of
its clients; and the employees of the Bank, who are entrusted with
FMICs forgery claim is that the money transferred by BPI to Tevesteco is its
the possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed
own, and considering that it was able to recover possession of the same
in them, occupy positions of confidence. The Informations, therefore,
sufficiently allege all the essential elements constituting the crime of when the money was redeposited by Franco, it had the right to set up its
Qualified Theft. ownership thereon and freeze Francos accounts.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on
Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated 30 January 2006 Issue: WON the bank has a better right to the deposits in Francos account.
and 9 June 2006 of the RTC dismissing Criminal cases No. 05-3054 Held: No. Significantly, while Article 559 permits an owner who has lost or
to 05-3165 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. has been unlawfully deprived of a movable to recover the exact same thing
from the current possessor, BPI simply claims ownership of the equivalent

BPI vs Court of Appeals, 538 amount of money, i.e., the value thereof, which it had mistakenly debited
from FMICs account and credited to Tevestecos, and subsequently traced

SCRA 184, GR No. 123498, to Francos account.

Money bears no earmarks of peculiar ownership, and this characteristic is all

November 23, 2007 the more manifest in the instant case which involves money in a banking
transaction gone awry. Its primary function is to pass from hand to hand as a
Posted by Pius Morados on January 12, 2012 medium of exchange, without other evidence of its title. Money, which had
been passed through various transactions in the general course of banking
(Negotiable Instruments Money as a medium of exchange)
business, even if of traceable origin, is no exception.
Facts: Franco opened 3 accounts with BPI with the total amount of
P2,000,000.00. The said amount used to open these accounts is traceable Share this:
to a check issued by Tevesteco. The funding for the P2,000,000.00 check
was part of the P80,000,000.00 debited by BPI from FMICs account (with a BPI FAMILY BANK V. FRANCO
(Simple Loan)
deposit of P100,000,000.00) and credited to Tevestecos account pursuant
Article 1980 of the Civil Code: Fixed, savings, and current deposits
to an Authority to Debit which was allegedly forged as claimed by FMIC. of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the
Tevesteco effected several withdrawals already from its account amounting provisions concerning loan.
to P37,455,410.54 including the P2,000,000.00 paid to Franco. As there is a debtor-creditor relationship between a bank and its
depositor, BPI-FB ultimately acquired ownership of Francos
deposits, but such ownership is coupled with a corresponding
Franco issued two checks which were dishonoured upon presentment for
obligation to pay him an equal amount on demand. Although BPI-FB
payment due to garnishment of his account filed by BPI. owns the deposits in Francos accounts, it cannot prevent him from
demanding payment of BPI-FBs obligation by drawing checks
against his current account, or asking for the release of the funds in their Current Account had been frozen upon instruction of
his savings account. Thus, when Franco issued checks drawn against Severino P. Coronacion, Vice-President of BPI-FB on the ground
his current account, he had every right as creditor to expect that that the source of fund was illegal or unauthorized; they
those checks would be honored by BPI-FB as debtor. demanded the reinstatement of the account, but BPI-FB refused.

On May 23, 1990, Edgardo Buenaventura, Myrna Lizardo and

Yolanda Tica (Buenaventura, et al.), all officers of the
International Baptist Church and International Baptist Academy in
Malabon, Metro Manila, filed a complaint for Reinstatement of
Current Account/Release of Money plus Damages against BPI
Family Bank (BPI-FB) before the Manila RTC, docketed as Civil
Case No. 90-53154.[2]

On June 20, 1990, BPI-FB filed a motion to dismiss on the ground

They alleged that: on August 30, 1989, they accepted from of litis pendentia, alleging that there is a pending case for
Amado Franco BPI-FB Check No. 129004 dated August 29, 1989 recovery of sum of money arising from the BPI-FB Check No.
in the amount of P500,000.00, jointly issued by Eladio Teves and 129004 dated August 29, 1989 before the Regional Trial Court
Joseph Teves;[3] they opened Current Account No. 807-065314- (RTC), Branch 146, Makati[4] and Buenaventura is one of the
0 with the BPI-FB Branch at Bonifacio Market, Edsa, Caloocan defendants therein.[5] Buenaventura, et al. opposed the motion
City and deposited the check as initial deposit; the check was to dismiss on the ground that there is no identity of parties, rights
subsequently cleared and the amount was credited to their asserted and reliefs prayed between the two cases.[6]
Current

Account; on September 3, 1989, they drew a check in the amount

of P10,171.50 and pursuant to normal banking procedure the
check was honored and debited from their Current
Account, leaving a balance of P490,328.50; on September 4,
1989, they drew another check in the amount of P46,189.60;
instead of debiting the said amount against their Current On October 10, 1990, the Manila RTC denied the motion to
dismiss, ruling that there can be no res judicata between the two
cases since the parties are different and the causes of action are
Account, it was debited, without their knowledge and consent, not the same.[7]
against their Savings Account No. 08-95332-5 with the same
branch; on September 9, 1989, they drew a check for P91,270.00
which, upon presentment for payment, was dishonored for the
reason account closed, in spite of the balance in the Current
Account of P490,328.50; they thereafter learned from BPI-FB that
 FACTS
Vicente Alegre invested with Cebu International
Finance Corporation (CIFC) P500,000 in cash.
On December 10, 1990, BPI-FB filed its answer alleging that: the
check received by Buenaventura, et al. from Amado Franco was CIFC issued promissory note which covered
drawn by Eladio Teves and Joseph Teves against the Current private respondents placement. CIFC issued BPI
Account of the Tevesteco Arrastre Stevedoring Co., Inc. Check No. 513397 (the Check) in favor of private
(Tevesteco); the funds in the said Tevesteco account allegedly respondent as proceeds of his matured
consisted mainly of funds in the amount of P80,000,000.00 investment. Mrs. Alegre deposited the Check with
transferred to it from another account belonging to the First Metro
Investment Corporation (FMIC); such transfer of funds was RCBC but BPI dishonoured it, annotating therein
effected on the basis of an Authority to Debit bearing the that the Check is subject of an investigation. BPI
signatures of certain officers of FMIC; upon its investigation, BPI- took possession of the Check pending
FB found that the signatures in the Authority to Debit were forged; investigation of several counterfeit checks drawn
before this, however, Tevesteco had already issued several
against CIFCs checking account. Private
checks against its Current Account, one of which is the BPI-
FB Check No. 129004 received by Buenaventura, et al. respondent demanded from CIFC that he be paid
from Amado Franco, after a series of indorsements; it has the in cash but the latter refused. Private respondent
right to consider the Current Account of Buenaventura, et al., Alegre filed a case for recovery of a sum of money
which is funded from BPI-FB Check No. 129004, as closed and to against CIFC.
refuse any further withdrawal from the same; assuming that the
forgery claim of FMIC is untrue and incorrect, it is the right of the
CIFC asserts that since BPI accepted the
BPI-FB, as a matter of protecting its interests, to freeze their
account or to hold it in suspense and not to allow any withdrawals instrument, the bank became primarily liable for
therefrom in the meantime that the issue of forgery remains the payment of the Check. When BPI offset the
unsettled; FMIC has instituted another civil action, presently value of the Check against the losses from the
pending appeal, against BPI-FB and several other defendants for forged cheks allegedly committed by private
the recovery of the P80,000,000.00 transferred from the formers
account to Tevestecos account.[8]
respondent, the Check was deemed paid.

Cebu Financial vs CA and Alegre Credit ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner CIFC is discharged from
Digest the liability of paying the value of the Check.
Cebu Financial vs CA and Alegre
GR No. 123031, 12 October 1999 HELD
316 SCRA 488 The Court held in the negative. In a money
market transaction, the investor is a lender who
loans his money to a borrower through a CIFC refused the request, and instead instructed him to wait
middleman or dealer. A check is not legal tender, for its ongoing bank reconciliation with BPI.
Alegre, through counsel, made a formal demand for the
and therefore cannot constitute valid tender of payment of his money market placement
payment. Since a negotiable instrument is only CIFC promised to replace the CHECK but required an
substitute for money and not money, the delivery impossible condition that the original must first be
of such an instrument does not by itself, operate surrendered.
February 25, 1992: Alegre filed a complaint for recovery of a
as payment. Mere delivery of checks does not
sum of money w/ the RTC against CIFC
discharge the obligation under a judgment. The CIFC filed a motion for leave of court to file a third-party
obligation is not extinguished and remains complaint against BPI - dismissed bec. of the other case
suspended until the payment by commercial CIFC asserted that the CHECK it issued in favor of Alegre
document is actually realized. (Article 1249) was genuine, valid and sufficiently funded.
July 13, 1992: CIFC sought to recover its lost funds and
formally filed against BPI
ACTS: alleged that BPI unlawfully deducted from CIFC's checking
April 25, 1991: Vicente Alegre (Alegre), invested with Cebu account, counterfeit checks amounting to P1,724,364.58
International Finance Corporation (CIFC),a quasi-banking compromise agreement, which was submitted for the
institution, P500,000.00 approval of the court
CIFC issued a promissory note to mature on May 27, 1991. The
BPI pay CFIC P1,724,364.58 + P20,000 litigation expenses
note for P516,238.67 covered private respondent's placement
plus 20.5% interest for 32 days. BPI shall debit of P514,390.94 from the current account of
May 27, 1991: CIFC issued BPI Check No. 513397 for CFIC payable to Alegre
P514,390.94 in favor of Alegre as proceeds of his matured In case BPI shall be adjudge liable to Alegre, he cannot go
investment plus interest. The CHECK was drawn from CIFC's after BPI
current account in the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) July 27, 1993: BPI filed a separate collection suit against
June 17, 1991: Alegre's wife deposited the check with Rizal Alegre
Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. alleged that Alegre connived w/ Lina A. Pena and Lita A.
BPI dishonored the CHECK with the annotation, that the
Anda and forged several checks of CIFC totalling
"Check (is) Subject of an Investigation
BPI took custody of the CHECK pending an investigation of
to P1,724,364.58 deducting P514,390.94 = P914,198.57
several counterfeit checks drawn against CIFC's aforestated + P20,000 cost of suit
checking account. September 27, 1993: RTC favored Alegre
BPI used the check to trace the perpetrators of the forgery. CIFC appealed but CA Affirmed
Immediately, Alegre notified CIFC of the dishonored CHECK ISSUE: W/N a check is of legal tender thereby extinguishing the
and demanded, on several occasions, that he be paid in obligation of CIFC to pay Alegre
cash.
HELD: NO. CA Affirmed. Although the value of the CHECK was deducted from the
Section 137 of the Negotiable Instruments Law funds of CIFC, it was not delivered to Alegre - did
BPI primarily liable for accepting the checks not not ipso facto operate as a discharge or payment
Art. 1249 of the New Civil Code A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making
The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to
stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in one already commenced
the currency, which is legal tender in the Philippines.
unenforceable against Alegre who is not a party
The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of
exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of BPI's confiscation of Alegre's money constitutes
payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the garnishment without the parties going through a valid
fault of the creditor they have been impaired. proceeding in court.
money market - a market dealing in standardized short- In effect, CIFC has not yet tendered a valid payment of its
term credit instruments (involving large amounts) where obligation to theAlegre
lenders and borrowers do not deal directly with each other GR compromise has upon the parties the effect and
but through a middle man or dealer in open market. In a authority of res judicata, with respect to the matter
money market transaction, the investor is a lender who definitely stated therein
loans his money to a borrower through a middleman or holds true even if the agreement has not been judicially
dealer. approved
In the case at bar, the money market transaction between CIFC cannot go against BPI
the CIFC and the Alegre is in the nature of a loan.
Alegre accepted the CHECK, instead of requiring payment in
money.
Yet, when he presented it to RCBC for encashment, as early
as June 17, 1991, the same was dishonored by non- TELENGTAN BROTHERS and SONS vs. UNITED STATES
acceptance, with BPI's annotation: "Check (is) subject of an LINES Case Digest
investigation." TELENGTAN BROTHERS and SONS vs. UNITED STATES
Under these circumstances, and after the notice of LINES
dishonor, the holder has an immediate right of recourse
against the drawer, and consequently could immediately file G.R.No. 132284
an action for the recovery of the value of the check.
In a loan transaction, the obligation to pay a sum certain in February 28,2006
money may be paid in money, which is the legal tender or,
by the use of a check.
A check is not a legal tender, and therefore cannot
constitute valid tender of payment. FACTS: Petitioner is a domestic corporation while US Lines is a
foreign corporation engaged in overseas shipping. It was made
applicable that consignees who fail to take delivery of their FACTS: On October 7, 2001, respondents Ngor and Go filed an
containerized cargo within the 10-day free period are liable to pay action for amendment and/or reformation of documents and
demurrage charges. On June 22, 1981, US Lines filed a suit contracts against Equitable and its employees. They claimed that
they were induced by the bank to avail of its peso and dollar
against petitioner seeking payment of demurrage charges plus
credit facilities by offering low interests so they accepted and
interest and damages. Petitioner incurred P94,000 which the signed Equitables proposal. They alleged that they were
latter refused to pay despite repeated demands. Petitioner unaware that the documents contained escalation clauses
disclaims liability alleging that it has never entered into a contract granting Equitable authority to increase interest without their
nor signed an agreement to be bound by it. RTC ruled that consent. These were rebutted by the bank. RTC ordered the use
petitioner is liable to respondent and all be computed as of the of the 1996 dollar exchange rate in computing respondents
date of payment in accordance with Article 1250 of the Civil dollar-denominated loans. CA granted the Banks application for
injunction but the properties were sold to public auction.
Code. CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was an extraordinary deflation

RULING: Extraordinary inflation exists when there is an unusual

ISSUE: Whether the re-computation of the judgment award in
decrease in the purchasing power of currency and such decrease
accordance with Article 1250 of the Civil Code proper could not be reasonably foreseen or was beyond the
contemplation of the parties at the time of the obligation. Deflation
is an inverse situation.
RULING: The Supreme Court found as erroneous the trial courts
Despite the devaluation of the peso, BSP never declared a
decision as affirmed y the Court of Appeals. The Court holds that situation of extraordinary inflation. Respondents should pay their
there has been an extraordinary inflation within the meaning of dollar denominated loans at the exchange rate fixed by the BSP
Article 1250 of the Civil Code. There is no reason for ordering the on the date of maturity.
payment of an obligation in an amount different from what has
been agreed upon because of the purported supervention of an Decision of lower courts are reversed and set aside.
extraordinary inflation. Article 1250. In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the
currency stipulated should intervene, the value of the currency at
the time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of
payment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. x x x FACTS:
The assailed decision is affirmed with modification that the order
for re-computation as of the date of payment in accordance with
1.
the provisions of Article 1250 of New Civil Code is deleted.

QUITABLE PCI BANK, YU and APAS v. NG SHEUNG NGOR

G.R.NO. 171545, December 19, 2007
Respondents Ng Sheung Ngor et al. filed an action for annulment use of the 1996 dollar exchange rate in computing respondents
and/or reformation of documents and contracts against Equitable dollar
PCI Bank and its employees. 2.
-denominated loans. 6.

Respondents claim that Equitable induced them to avail of its peso

and dollar credit facilities RTCs dispositive: directing Ng Sheung Ngor et al. to pay Equitable t

by offering low interest rates, so they accepted the banks proposal he unpaid principal obligation for the peso loan as well as the
unpaid obligation for the dollar-denominated loan, following the
and signed Equitables
conversion rate at the time of incurring the obligation, in
pre-printed promissory notes. 3. accordance with Article 1250 of the Civil Code.

RELEVANT ISSUE: 1.

However, they were unaware that the documents contained

identical escalation clauses granting Equitable authority to increase
interest rates without their consent. Equitable answered that Whether or not respondents Ng Sheung Ngor should pay their
respondents knowingly accepted all the terms and conditions dollar-denominated loans at the exchange rate fixed by the BSP on
contained in the promissory notes. 4. the date of maturity YES

RTC upheld the validity of the promissory notes but invalidated the
escalation clause because it violated the principle of mutuality of HELD: 1.
contracts. 5.

THERE WAS NO EXTRAORDINARY DEFLATION. 2.

Nevertheless, RTC took judicial notice of the steep depreciation of
the peso during the intervening period and declared the existence
of extraordinary deflation. RTC ordered the
Extraordinary inflation exists when there is an unusual decrease in
the purchasing power of currency (that is, beyond the common
fluctuation in the value of currency) and such decrease could not be That the parties expressly agreed to consider the effects of the
reasonably foreseen or was manifestly beyond the contemplation of extraordinary deflation. 5.
the parties at the time of the obligation. Extraordinary deflation
involves an inverse situation.
In this case, despite the devaluation of the peso, the BSP never
3. declared a situation of extraordinary inflation.

6.
Article 1250.

In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency Moreover, although the obligation arose out of a contract, the
stipulated should intervene, the value of the currency at the time of parties did not agree to recognize the effects of extraordinary
the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, inflation.
unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
7.
4.

The RTC never mentioned that there was such a stipulation either in
For extraordinary inflation or deflation to affect an obligation, the the promissory note or loan agreement.
following requisites must be proven: a)
8.

That there was an official declaration of extraordinary deflation

from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas b) Therefore, respondents Ng Sheung Ngor should pay their dollar-
denominated loans at the exchange rate fixed by the BSP on the
date of maturity.
That the obligation was contractual in nature c)
Facts: In May 1997, respondent Petitioners filed an action for
Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc. ejectment.
(lessee) entered into a contract of
Issue: Whether or not declaratory
lease with petitioners (lessors).
relief is proper.
Provisions of the contract of lease
include: Held: YES. Petitioners insist that
respondent was already in breachof
6th - Lessee shall pay an increased
the contract when the petition was
rent if there is any new tax imposed
filed, thus, respondent is barred from
on the property
filing an action for declaratory relief.
7th - In case of supervening However, after petitioners demanded
extraordinary inflation or devaluation payment of adjusted rentals and in the
of the PHP, the value of PHP at the months that followed, respondent
time of the establishment of the complied with the terms and
obligation shall be the basis of conditions set forth in their contract of
payment lease by paying the rentals stipulated
therein. Respondent religiously
Petitioners later demanded payment
fulfilled its obligations to petitioners
of VAT and 73% adjusted rentals
even during the pendency of the
pursuant to the foregoing provisions.
present suit. There is no showing that
Respondent refused and filed an
respondent committed an act
action for declaratory relief.
constituting a breach of the subject
contract of lease. Thus, respondent is was on appeal, initiated the
not barred from instituting before the suspension of
trial court the petition for declaratory the proceedings pending the
relief. resolution of the action for declaratory
relief.
Petitioners further claim that
ALMEDA v. BATHALA MARKETING Case Digest
the instant petition is not proper EUFEMIA and ROMEL ALMEDA v. BATHALA MARKETING
because a separate action for G.R.No. 150806, January 28, 2008
rescission, ejectment and damages
had been commenced before another
FACTS: In May 1997, Bathala Marketng, renewed its Contract of
court; thus, the construction of the Lease with Ponciano Almeda. Under the contract, Ponciano
subject contractual provisions should agreed to lease a porton of Almeda Compound for a monthly
rental of P1,107,348.69 for four years. On January 26, 1998,
be ventilated in the same forum. petitioner informed respondent that its monthly rental be
increased by 73% pursuant to the condition No. 7 of the contract
As a rule, the petition for declaratory and Article 1250. Respondent refused the demand and insisted
relief should be dismissed in view of that there was no extraordinary inflation to warrant such
application. Respondent refused to pay the VAT and adjusted
the pendency of a separate action for rentals as demanded by the petitioners but continually paid the
unlawful detainer. In this case, stipulated amount. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent and
declared that plaintiff is not liable for the payment of VAT and the
however, the trial court had not yet adjustment rental, there being no extraordinary inflation or
resolved the rescission/ejectment devaluation. CA affirmed the decision deleting the amounts
representing 10% VAT and rental adjustment.
case during the pendency of the
declaratory relief petition. In fact, the
trial court, where the rescission case ISSUE: Whether the amount of rentals due the petitioners should
be adjusted by reason of extraordinary inflation or devaluation
RULING: Petitioners are stopped from shifting to respondent the
burden of paying the VAT. 6th Condition states that respondent
can only be held liable for new taxes imposed after the effectivity
of the contract of lease, after 1977, VAT cannot be considered a
new tax. Neither can petitioners legitimately demand rental
adjustment because of extraordinary inflation or devaluation.
Absent an official pronouncement or declaration by competent
authorities of its existence, its effects are not to be applied.

Petition is denied. CA decision is affirmed.