Short answer. As a rule, no. Article 4 states that laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. A new law governs acts and events from the time it takes effect forward, not what already happened, unless the law itself clearly says it is meant to reach back.
What the law says
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
Civil Code, Article 4 — No Retroactive Effect of Laws. Read the full provision →
The default is forward-looking
Article 4 states the general rule in one line: laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. The principle protects a basic sense of fairness. People arrange their affairs on the strength of the law as it stands; it would be unjust to judge yesterday's conduct by a rule invented today. So a new statute is presumed to speak to the future, to acts done, rights acquired and obligations incurred after it comes into force, and it leaves the past under the law that governed it at the time. Retroactivity is the exception the law must deliberately choose, not the normal setting.
How a law overcomes the presumption
The article's own escape clause is unless the contrary is provided. A legislature can make a law retroactive, but it must say so, clearly and not by accident. Courts do not lightly read a statute as reaching backward; the intention to do so has to appear in the law itself. Even then, there are limits the Constitution imposes: a retroactive law cannot impair the obligation of contracts, and criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively to punish or increase the punishment for acts done before them. So the 'unless' is real but narrow, and it is bounded by higher rules a mere provision cannot override.
The exceptions that soften it
Some categories are treated more flexibly, though always within limits. A penal law that is favorable to the accused is generally given retroactive effect, because applying the milder rule harms no one and benefits liberty. Procedural or remedial rules, those about how a right is enforced rather than the right itself, are often applied to pending matters, since no one has a vested right in a particular procedure. Curative statutes, meant to fix defects in prior acts, may reach back as well. But none of these lets a new law disturb rights that have already vested or contracts already made; that boundary holds.
What this means when the law changes around you
Practically, when a law changes you generally look to the law in force when the relevant act or event occurred, not the newest version, to judge what was lawful and what rights arose. If a new statute claims to apply to your past situation, the questions are whether it actually says it is retroactive and whether doing so would impair a vested right, a contract, or offend the ban on retroactive penal laws. Because the answer turns on the wording of the specific law and on constitutional limits, a situation that straddles a legal change is worth checking carefully rather than assuming the latest rule automatically controls.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- San Miguel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 257697, April 12, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- William G. Kwong Management, Inc. and William G. Kwong vs. Diamond Homeowners & Residents, G.R. No. 211353, June 10, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine International Trading Corporation vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 205837, November 21, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Gerardo R. Villaseñor and Rodel A. Mesa vs. Ombudsman and Hon. Herbert Bautista, City Mayor, Quezon City, G.R. No. 202303, June 4, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →