Aguas Aslarona and Partners Law Firm

Home
Philippines
Angeles City
Aguas Aslarona and Partners Law Firm

𝐀𝐆𝐔𝐀𝐒 𝐀𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐎𝐍𝐀 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐍𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐌
𝐿𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠
𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝟐𝟒 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬 | 𝟑𝟔𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬

"𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑛𝑜 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑, 𝑤𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒!"

We are a Law Firm with a legal team that provides legal and notarial services round-the-clock! Be it the weekends, the holidays, or the wee hours of the night, we are always ready to provide reliable, quality, and affordable legal and notarial services. Just drop us a message on Facebook or contact us through our mobile number. We are always ready to be at your service – 365 days, 24 hours, 7-days a week! When no one else is around, we will be there!

18/08/2026

The has acquitted a woman of bigamy, ruling that a prior marriage that was void from the beginning (𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘣 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰) may be raised as a defense even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Pampanga and the Court of Appeals (CA), which had found Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira guilty of bigamy.

Lapira faced a bigamy charge under Article 349 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 for marrying Jimmy Fariscal while still married to Takahiko Sato as evidenced by a marriage certificate from the Office of the Civil Registrar General.

During trial, Lapira argued that her marriage to Sato was void because no ceremony took place and no marriage license had been issued, both of which were required for validity. The Local Civil Registrar confirmed that there was no record of the application for a marriage license for Lapira and Sato.

In acquitting Lapira, the SC applied its ruling in the 2021 case of 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘰 𝘷. 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, which held that an accused in a bigamy case may directly argue that a previous marriage is void as a defense, even without a prior court declaration.

The SC explained that one of the essential elements of bigamy is the existence of a valid prior marriage. If the first marriage was void from the beginning, that element is absent.

In this case, the certification from the Local Civil Registrar sufficiently proved that no marriage license was issued to Lapira and Sato. This certification was enough to counter the presumption of the marriage certificate’s validity.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171178.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165698.

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

31/07/2026

The RTC Has Jurisdiction Over Unjust Vexation When Committed Through ICT (Cyber-Enabled Unjust Vexation)

Unjust vexation (UV) is punished under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10951. Article 287 expressly provides that “other coercions or unjust vexations” are punishable by arresto menor or a fine ranging from ₱1,000 to ₱40,000, or both.

When unjust vexation is committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technology (ICT)—for example, harassment or annoying conduct carried out through Facebook, Messenger, email, or other online platforms—Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. No. 10175) applies. Section 6 provides that all RPC crimes committed through ICT are covered by RA 10175, and the penalty to be imposed is one (1) degree higher.

Accordingly, cyber-enabled unjust vexation (UV “in relation to Sec. 6, RA 10175”) is penalized one degree higher than the penalty for ordinary unjust vexation under Article 287.

The correct basis for RTC jurisdiction is Section 21 of R.A. No. 10175, which expressly provides that the Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of the Act:

“SEC. 21. Jurisdiction. — The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Act….”— RA 10175, Sec. 21 (2012)

Thus, once the prosecution alleges and proves that unjust vexation was committed through ICT (triggering Section 6 coverage), the case falls under RA 10175’s jurisdictional framework and should be filed in the RTC.

This is reinforced by the Rules on Cybercrime Warrants, which state that RPC crimes committed through ICT (i.e., Section 6 cases) shall be filed before the regular or specialized RTCs, as applicable.

References

RA 10951, Sec. 73 (amending Art. 287) (2017)

RA 10175, Sec. 21 (2012)

Catan v. People (2023)

A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, Rules on Cybercrime Warrants (2018)

31/07/2026

Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justice Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, 2024 Bar Examiner for Commercial and Taxation Law, talks about claiming tax refunds in Episode 107: Tax Refunds: Wrong Collections, Wrong Time.

What are the kinds of tax refunds recognized under the Philippine tax laws? Do the three types of refunds have different timelines for when you can file a claim?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6F3uTQ9UsdkldxQk4l59eK?si=euLZ0O2WRDGItlah9aJnag

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000751884574

YouTube: https://youtu.be/9bUsoimDkqk

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1TwXuPkR8i/

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

31/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division granted a woman’s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

31/07/2026

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Office of the Ombudsman
G.R. No. 201069, June 16, 2021

ISSUE: Whether or not Central Bank employees are allowed to borrow money from bank subject to the agency's supervision?

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) held that personnel of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) are prohibited from securing loan from any institution subject to its supervision or examination, unless said borrowing is transacted on an arm's length basis, fully disclosed to the Monetary Board, and shall be subjected to such rules & regulations as the Monetary Board may prescribe, citing Sec. 27(d) of R.A. 7653 or the New Central Bank Act.

It explained that the said provision is composed of two parts: The first part of the provision states the general rule: BSP personnel are not allowed to "[borrow] from any institution subject to supervision or examination by the Bangko Sentral unless said borrowings are adequately secured, fully disclosed to the Monetary Board, and subjected to such further rules and regulations as the Monetary Board may prescribe."

Meanwhile, the second part further qualifies this rule with a second, more specific prohibition: "That personnel of the supervising and examining departments are prohibited from borrowing from a bank under their supervision or examination." This qualification to the general rule is specifically targeted at the BSP personnel who do the actual work of supervising and examining banks, and who are absolutely prohibited from borrowing from banks under their supervision or examination.

31/07/2026

The (SC) has upheld the conviction of Australian national Martin Cook for trafficking four minors sentencing him to life imprisonment, reiterating that even with minors’ consent, trafficking is still committed even when no coercive, abusive, or deceptive means were used against them.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division found Cook guilty of trafficking four boys between 11 and 13 years old, for harboring and receiving them in his house for prostitution and sexual exploitation. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a PHP 2-Million fine, along with PHP 600,000.00 in damages to each of the four victims.

The SC, in affirming the penalty of life imprisonment imposed upon Cook, reiterated that such penalty, being prescribed by Republic Act (RA) No. 9208 or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2003, as amended by RA 10364, a special penal law, does not admit of any mitigating or other modifying circumstances, as it does not adopt the nomenclature of penalties imposed by 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (RPC).

The case stemmed from the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s request for the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate Cook’s alleged trafficking activities.

After conducting surveillance near Cook’s residence, the NBI interviewed the four children, who said their friends invited them to go to Cook's house for food and money in exchange for sexual services.

Two of the four minor victims testified that they became acquainted with Cook on Facebook.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Cook, then 76 years old, of qualified trafficking under RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364. The RTC found that he obtained and maintained the minors in his house to sexually exploit them.

However, the RTC imposed the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 instead of life imprisonment as it took into consideration the Cook’s advanced age as privileged mitigating circumstance that reduced the penalty by one or two degrees under the RPC

The Court of Appeals affirmed Cook’s conviction but increased the penalty to life imprisonment. It held that Cook’s age was an ordinary mitigating circumstance under the RPC, which reduces a penalty only to its minimum period. It added that life imprisonment must still be imposed because it is an indivisible penalty and therefore does not have periods.

The SC found all the elements of qualified trafficking present and upheld the Cook’s conviction and life sentence.

Trafficking happens when individuals are recruited or harbored—whether or not they give consent—through deception, coercion, or abuse of power for exploitative purposes like prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation. When the victims are minors, the offense becomes qualified trafficking, which carries a penalty of life imprisonment.

Here, the victims’ testimonies sufficiently established that Cook obtained and kept them in his house for sexual exploitation. The SC noted the detailed account of how Cook looked for minors on Facebook and enticed them with offers of food and money in exchange for sexual favors.

Cook’s claim that the children willingly went to his house is not a valid defense. The Supreme Court explained that in child trafficking cases, the means by which trafficking is committed is not relevant. The prosecution does not need to prove that force, coercion, or deception was used because a child cannot legally consent to being trafficked.

In affirming the penalty of life sentence, albeit for a different reason, the SC clarified that since RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364, does not adopt the RPC’s penalty framework, any mitigating circumstance in favor of Cook must be disregarded.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160217

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160212

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

31/07/2026

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

Melysinda Reyes vs. Maria Salome Elquiero
G.R. No. 210487, September 02, 2020

ISSUE: Whether, in habeas corpus cases involving child custody, the petitioner must prove illegal detention or restraint of liberty.

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) held that while the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ordinarily requires proof of restraint of liberty amounting to an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom, this requirement does not strictly apply in child custody cases. In such cases, parents may invoke the writ to regain custody of a minor child even when the child is staying with a third person of her own free will.

The foregoing principles considered, the grant of the writ in the instant case will all depend on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondent.

It may even be said that in custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy; rather, the writ of habeas corpus is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child. The controversy does not involve the question of personal freedom and the child's welfare is the supreme or paramount consideration.

31/07/2026

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

Melysinda Reyes vs. Maria Salome Elquiero
G.R. No. 210487, September 02, 2020

ISSUE: Whether legal relationship created by adoption extends to relatives of adopter and adoptee.

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that legal relationship created by adoption extends only to the adopter and the adoptee and does not include the relatives of the adopting parents or of the adopted child except only as expressly provided for by law. In this case, the petitioner cannot claim custody of the subject child because the law recognizes a familial relationship only with respect to her husband, the child’s adoptive father, and does not extend that relationship to the adoptive father’s relatives, including the herein petitioner.

In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following person shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated as provided under Article 216 of the Family Code:(1) The surviving grandparent (2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and (3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.

Hence, the adopted child cannot be considered as a relative of the ascendants and collaterals of the adopting parents, nor of the legitimate children which they may have after the adoption. The relationship created is exclusively between, the adopter and the adopted, and does not extend to the relatives of either.

31/07/2026

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

Herminio Besmonte vs. National Police Commission-NCR
G.R. No. 260148, April 03, 2024

ISSUE: Whether the police officer's act of employing excessive force in effecting the arrest only constitutes simple misconduct?

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) held that in conducting operations, police officers are required to use necessary and reasonable force to accomplish his/her mandated task of enforcing the law and maintaining peace and order as provided in the PNP Police Operational Procedures Manual. The necessity and reasonableness of the force employed will depend upon the number of aggressors, the nature and characteristic of the weapon used, physical condition, size, and other circumstances, to include the place and occasion of the assault. The police officer is given the sound discretion to consider these factors in employing reasonable force.

In this case, there were three (3) members of the team who conducted the buy-bust operation, composed of the herein respondent, and the subject of the operation was only one female. The respondent kicked the complainant on the thigh and punched the left side of her face. The SC modified the ruling of the Court of Appeals, finding the respondent guilty of grave misconduct. Although it was established that he employed excessive force in arresting the complainant, his actions were not attended by corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules that would qualify the act as grave misconduct. Thus, he may only be held liable for less serious offense of simple misconduct.

31/07/2026

LANDMARK JURISPRUDENCE: PROPERTY LAW

Imagine this: You allow a cousin to use your land out of kindness. Years later, he claims to own it, invoking inheritance. You hold a Torrens title. Who keeps the land?

Subscribe to stay updated on land disputes and property law rulings.

Numeriano Abobon claimed a 3,000 sqm portion of land in Pangasinan as inheritance from his parents. Felicitas and Gelima Abobon, registered owners of the 4,668 sqm lot under TCT No. 201367, sued to recover possession. The MCTC ruled in their favor. The RTC and CA affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the respondents' right to possess the land based on the Torrens title. It ruled that Numeriano’s claim involved a different parcel and his attack on the title was a prohibited collateral attack. The Court deleted the damages and attorney’s fees for lack of factual basis.

Doctrine:
Indefeasibility of Torrens Title – A certificate of title is conclusive proof of ownership. It cannot be attacked collaterally, only in a direct action for annulment.

Should family generosity give rise to ownership rights? Comment your thoughts. Save and favorite this for future reference.

G.R. No. 155830, August 15, 2012
Numeriano Abobon vs. Felicitas and Gelima Abobon

FAQ:

1. Can you challenge a Torrens title in a defense?
No. The law requires a direct action to annul or alter a Torrens title. Collateral attacks are not allowed.

2. Does long possession justify ownership over titled land?
No. Possession, even if long, cannot defeat a valid Torrens title unless proven acquired through fraud.

Disclaimer: For educational purposes only. Content may contain errors. Generated using premium AI.

Address

2nd Floor, Hotel Gogo, Lot 1, 2 & 24, Blk 13 Corner Valdez St. , Malabanias Road
Angeles City
2009

Website

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61591394348414

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Aguas Aslarona and Partners Law Firm posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Want your practice to be the top-listed Law Practice in Angeles City?

Aguas Aslarona and Partners Law Firm

18/08/2026

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

31/07/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request