Macaraeg Law

19/03/2026

We’re open this Friday and Saturday (March 19–20, 2026) from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ✨

For appointments, just send us a message. See you!

25/02/2026

February 25, 2026

Our office is open today from 9:00AM - 5:00PM.

24/02/2026

📣 𝗦𝗘𝗖 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗙𝗦, 𝗚𝗜𝗦 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued the schedule for the submission of corporations’ annual financial statements (AFS) and general information sheets (GIS) for 2026.

The SEC on February 11 issued Memorandum Circular No. 9, Series of 2026, which provides for the schedule of the 2026 Filing of Annual Financial Statements and General Information Sheets.

The AFS and GIS shall be filed through the Electronic Filing and Submission Tool, or eFAST. Other reports not yet accepted through eFAST shall be submitted through the iMessage Online Ticketing System at imessage.sec.gov.ph.

🔗 Read the full Memorandum Circular here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/mc-2026/sec-mc-no-09-series-of-2026/

10/02/2026

Nagpasya ang na puwedeng kilalanin bilang magkatuwang na may-ari ng ari-arian (co-owners of property) ang mga nagsasama na magkapareho ang kasarian, alinsunod sa Artikulo 148 ng Family Code, kung may sapat na patunay na kapwa silang may aktuwal na ambag sa naturang mga pag-aari.

Sa isang desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, pinagbigyan ng Second Division ng Korte Suprema ang reklamo ng isang babae para sa paghahati ng ari-arian at kinilala siya bilang isa sa mga may-ari ng bahay at lupang kanyang pinagsamahan kasama ang kanyang kaparehong kasarian na partner.

Ang Artikulo 148 ng Family Code ang nagtatakda ng mga patakaran sa pagmamay-ari ng ari-arian ng mga magkaparehang nagsasama ngunit hindi maaaring magpakasal ayon sa batas, at kinikilala nito ang pagiging magkatuwang na may-ari batay sa aktuwal na ambag ng bawat isa.

Nagsama ang dalawang babae bilang magkarelasyon. Isang taon matapos ang kanilang relasyon, bumili sila ng isang bahay at lupa, at napagkasunduan nilang isa sa kanila na lamang ang irehistrong pangalan para mapadali ang mga transaksyon sa bangko.

Nang maghiwalay sila, napagkasunduan nilang ibenta ang ari-arian at hatiin nang pantay ang kita. Isa sa kanila ang lumagda sa isang Acknowledgment na nagpapatunay na ang isa pa ay nag-ambag ng halos 50% ng gastos sa pagbili at pagpapagawa ng bahay.

Gayunpaman, kalaunan ay hindi siya pumayag na ibenta ang ari-arian at itinanggi niya na ang dating karelasyon niya ay isa ring may-ari nito.

Para maprotektahan ang kanyang karapatan, ang dating kapareha ay naglagay ng adverse claim sa titulo ng ari-arian at humiling ng paghahati nito. Nang hindi ito magtagumpay, nagsampa siya ng kaso para sa paghahati ng real estate at kabayaran sa danyos, gamit ang Acknowledgment bilang patunay ng pagiging magkatuwang na may-ari.

Pinagbigyan ng Korte Suprema ang reklamo para sa paghahati ng ari-arian, habang nilinaw nito ang mga probisyon sa Family Code na namamahala sa ugnayan sa ari-arian ng mga magkasintahang nagsasama ngunit hindi kasal.

Ang Artikulo 147 ay naaangkop sa mga magkasintahang hindi pa kasal ngunit maaaring magpakasal ayon sa batas. Ang ari-ariang nakuha habang sila’y nagsasama ay ipinapalagay na pagmamay-ari ng magkatuwang.

Samantala, ang Artikulo 148 ay naaangkop sa mga magkasintahang hindi pinapayagang magpakasal. Tanging ang mga ari-ariang nakuha sa pamamagitan ng aktuwal na ambag ang itinuturing na pagmamay-ari ng magkatuwang.

Dahil ang Family Code ay nagpapahintulot lamang ng pag-aasawa sa pagitan ng lalaki at babae, itinuring ng Korte Suprema na ang mga magkaparehong kasarian ay sakop ng Artikulo 148.

Dito, napagpasyahan ng Korte Suprema na ang nilagdaang Acknowledgment, kung saan inamin ng isang kapareha na nagbayad ang isa pa ng halos kalahati ng gastos sa ari-arian, ay itinuturing na may bisa at sapat na patunay ng aktuwal na ambag. Ito ang nagpatibay sa pagiging magkatuwang na may-ari.

Basahin ang Press Release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Basahin ang kabuuang teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Basahin ang Concurring Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Basahin ang Concurrence ni Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC Public Information Office: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

03/11/2025

Stay safe everyone.

18/08/2025

17/07/2025

Stay safe and dry everyone!

Alcoy Emergency Hotline Numbers.

10/07/2025

Wishing a happy birthday to our ever-reliable secretary! Thank you for keeping things organized and on track. Enjoy your day, Olaiza Joy 🥳

26/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

08/04/2025

We remember and honor the bravery and sacrifices of our heroes on 𝐴𝑟𝑎𝑤 𝑛𝑔 𝐾𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑛 🇵🇭

Our office will be open from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM to serve you.

06/03/2025

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

28/01/2025

Happy Chinese New Year! 🧧✨ As we welcome the Year of the Snake, Macaraeg Law will remain open on January 29, 2025 from 9:00AM - 4:00PM, to assist you with your legal needs.

📍 Feel free to visit our office or contact us at +63 969 198 8362 to schedule an appointment.