Arce vs. Capital Ins. - Surety Co., GR No. L-28501, Sep. 30, 1982

11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017
VOL. 117, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 63

Arce vs. Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc.
*
No. L-28501. September 30, 1966.
PEDRO ARCE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE CAPITAL

INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellant.
Mercantile Law; Insurance; Unless premium is paid, insurance

contract not effective; Insurance company relieved of obligation to pay
insurance proceeds under the policy for insured’s failure to pay premiums
on the policy.—lt is obvious from both the Insurance Act, as amended, and
the stipulation of the parties that time is of the
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
64
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Capulong vs. Acting Commissioner of Customs
law. Their violation, therefore, comes within the purview of Section

1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code.
Petitioner also contends that the merchandise in question cannot
be legally forfeited under Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45
because these circulars have already been repealed by Central Bank
Circular 133. This contention is without merit. Central Bank
Circular 133 has not exactly repealed Central Bank Circulars Nos.
44 and 45 but rather it re-enacted them when it provided therein that
all existing regulations not inconsistent with the circulars are
deemed incorporated and made integral parts thereof by reference.
And it cannot be disputed that.both Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44
and 45 and Central Bank Circular No. 133 have a common purpose,
—which is to require the presentation of a release certificate from
the Central Bank before any importation may be made to the
Philippines. Evidently, the purpose of these circulars is to keep a tab
of the volume of imports that come into the Philippines in order to
enable the Central Bank to make a survey and study of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e499e23be137d3950003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/3
appropriate measures that may be adopted to remedy the longdrawn

financial crisis in the country.
Even assuming that Central Bank Circular No. 133 had the effect
of repealing impliedly Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, such
repeal, however, cannot have the effect of abating the forfeiture case
instituted against petitioner for the simple reason that forfeiture
proceedings are civil in nature and not criminal. In this sense, the
repeal cannot be given any retroactive effect.
“x x x Petitioner contends that upon the expiration of Republic Act No. 650
the Commissioner of Customs lost jurisdiction over the case and therefore
his decision was null and void, This contention is untenable. It is a settled
rule that a court, be it judicial or administrative, that has acquired
jurisdiction over a case, retains it even after the expiration of the law
governing the case. Herein, we are concerned with the effect of the
expiration of a law, not with the abrogation of a law, and we hold the view
that once the Commissioner of Customs has acquired jurisdiction over the
case, the mere expiration of Republic Act No. 650 will not divest him of his
jurisdiction thereon duly acquired while said law was still in force. In other
words, we believe that despite the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 the
Commissioner of Customs retained his jurisdiction over the
65
VOL. 17, MAY 19, 1966 65

Luzon Stevedoring Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
case and could continue to take cognizance thereof until its final
determination, for the main question brought in by the appeal from the
decision of the Collector of Customs was the legality or illegality of the
decision of the Collector of Customs, and that question could not have been
abated by the mere expiration of Republic Act No. 650. We firmly believe
that the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 could not have produced the
effect (1) of declaring legal the importation of the cotton counterpanes
which were illegally imported, and (2) of declaring the seizure and
forfeiture ordered by the Collector of Customs illegal or null and void; in
other words, it could not have the effect of annulling or setting aside the
decision of the Collector of Customs which was rendered while the law was
in force and which should stand until it is revoked by the appellate tribunal.
x x x” (Roxas vs. Sayoc, G.R. No. L-8502. November 29, 1956).
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against

petitioner.
Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon and Justices J.B.L. Reyes,

Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and
Sanchez, concur. Mr. Justice Concepcion concurs in the result.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.—See Capulong vs. Aseron, L-22989, May 14, 1966 and

Lazaro vs. Commissioner. of Customs, L-22511, May 16, 1966, ante;
the notes under Felipe Yupangco & Sons, Inc. vs. Commissioner of
Customs, L-22259, Jan. 19, 1966, 16 Supreme Court Reports
Annotated 1; Philippines International Surety Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Tax Appeals, L-22420, March 18, 1967 and Extensive Enterprises
Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-22515, April 27,
1967, 19 Supreme Court Reports Annotated.
—————
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Arce vs. Capital Ins. - Surety Co., GR No. L-28501, Sep. 30, 1982

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arce vs. Capital Ins. - Surety Co., GR No. L-28501, Sep. 30, 1982

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arce vs. Capital Ins. - Surety Co., GR No. L-28501, Sep. 30, 1982

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017

VOL. 117, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 63

PEDRO ARCE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE CAPITAL

Mercantile Law; Insurance; Unless premium is paid, insurance

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

law. Their violation, therefore, comes within the purview of Section

appropriate measures that may be adopted to remedy the longdrawn

VOL. 17, MAY 19, 1966 65

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is afﬁrmed. Costs against

Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon and Justices J.B.L. Reyes,

Notes.—See Capulong vs. Aseron, L-22989, May 14, 1966 and

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like