Moya Law Firm

21/02/2026

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/.

21/02/2026

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has issued guidelines in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, clarifying that it must be evaluated based on the person’s true intent and the totality of the circumstances.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC granted the accused’s petition and reduced his sentence, recognizing his surrender as voluntary even if he surrendered after learning of the issuance of arrest warrant against him.

The accused went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to apply for clearance. During processing, his name registered a “hit”, indicating he had a pending case. He admitted this to the NBI officer.

He was instructed to return after one week while the records were being verified. When he came back, the NBI officer confirmed he had a pending bigamy case and an outstanding warrant for his arrest issued 13 years earlier. He then told the officer, “masuko na lang ako” (I will surrender) and asked help in posting bail. The arrest warrant was then served on him.

The NBI later issued a certificate stating that he voluntarily surrendered to their office. However, the return of the warrant and order of release described him as having been “arrested.”

During arraignment, the accused first pleaded not guilty but later entered into a plea bargain, asking the court to consider his voluntary surrender and guilty plea.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of bigamy and considered his plea of guilt, but ruled that he did not voluntarily surrender. It relied on the warrant’s return and release order, which stated that he was “arrested,” and noted that the case had been pending for 13 years because he could not be located. The Court of Appeals affirmed this, finding that he went to the NBI not to surrender but to apply for clearance, and that when he said he would surrender, he had no choice because he was already inside the NBI office.

The SC disagreed.

Under Article 13(7) of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, voluntary surrender requires that the offender had not been arrested; they surrendered themselves to a person in authority or its agent; and the surrender was voluntary.

In this case, the accused returned to the NBI and said he would surrender before the arrest warrant was actually served on him. He had not yet been arrested. He also surrendered to an NBI officer, a person in authority.

The SC ruled that voluntary surrender must be viewed with a “more considerate and broad-minded approach” once guilt has been established. It stressed that voluntary surrender must be assessed through the totality of circumstances, laying down the following guiding principles:

1. The voluntariness and spontaneity of the surrender must show that offender either admits their guilt or wish to spare authorities the trouble of searching for and arresting them.

2. The circumstances of the voluntary surrender is independent of the fact of the issuance of the arrest warrant. The mere fact of the arrest warrant’s prior issuance should not be taken against the accused’s claim of voluntary surrender when other circumstances point to the fulfillment of all requirements, including voluntariness. However, knowledge of the accused of the existence of an arrest warrant against them and their continued evasion of justice can negate voluntariness and spontaneity.

3. The lapse of time an accused used to evade the law could be a criterion in negating spontaneity.

4. Voluntariness is not negated by the fact that there is likelihood that the accused may be arrested anytime before they surrendered. Imminence of arrest should be coupled with an indication that the accused fled or could further escape and evade, before it could deny voluntariness.

5. The intention of the accused at the time of surrender must be considered with other circumstances in determining entitlement to mitigating circumstance. The offender is not required to surrender at the first opportunity.

6. If the records do not clearly show that the offender voluntarily surrendered, that doubt cannot be resolved in their favor.

As to the voluntariness of his surrender, the SC emphasized that if he intended to evade arrest, he would not have returned to the NBI. While his first visit was to secure a clearance, his decision to return despite knowing there might be an active case shows his willingness to cooperate with the authorities.

The SC also clarified that while he knew about the pending case, there was no proof that he knew a warrant for his arrest had already been issued. It also noted the absence of any attempt to flee, his open use of his real name, and the fact that he returned to the NBI on his own.

The SC also reminded judges to avoid making quick or premature conclusions, emphasizing:

“What the Court asks and expects of magistrates on the frontlines of justice is to adjudge each case wholly, fully, and fairly as discerning persons learned in the law and literate in life experience, and not as cold-hearted automatons or soulless supercomputers, for even a single judge’s role in the administration of our penal laws can indeed have far-reaching consequences for the parties and for human society as a whole… The law may be harsh, but it need not be harsher.”

The accused’s sentence was reduced from a maximum of six years to a maximum of four years in prison.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160857

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160836

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/258592-formerly-udk-no-17170-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

21/02/2026

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION TECHNIQUES.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada.

“A witness between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.” - Benjamin Franklin.

This is true in cross-examination. The opposing parties may benefit from an adverse witness depending upon the kind of question being asked to the witness on the stand who is the source of relevant information of the case. It may help his/her case if he/she knows how to ask the right questions.

PURPOSES:

Cross-examination is the process of questioning an adverse party or witness. Cross-examination questions should be limited to those that reveal information necessary to support statements made in the closing argument. Cross-examination usually consists of narrow, leading questions by the attorney, which call for “yes,” “no,” or specific answers.

There are exceptions to this generalization, which are most likely to occur during supportive cross-examination. However, careful consideration must be given before open-ended questions are asked on cross-examination.

Cross-examination serves two primary purposes:

Destructive Cross.

Cross-examination can be used to discredit the testifying witness or another witness. This may be accomplished in several ways, including attacking the credibility of the witness or testimony. Most of the questions asked on cross-examination will be designed to reduce the credibility or persuasive value of the opposition’s evidence.

Supportive Cross.

Cross-examination can be used to bolster evidence that supports the cross-examiner’s theory of the case. Cross- examination may be used to independently develop favorable aspects of the case not developed on direct examination.

PREPARATION AND ORGANIZATION:

Full preparation, including knowledge about the facts, evidence, law, opponent, and witness involved, will facilitate cross-examination. All available discovery and investigation techniques should be used to find out everything there is to know about the case.

Anticipation of the opponent’s side of the case is essential. Considerations include what all the witnesses will testify to, how the other side will try the case, how both sides of the case can be attacked, and what evidence can be kept out under the rules.

SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.

The scope of cross-examination will usually be limited to questions involving the subject of the direct examination or the credibility of a witness. Most judges will provide cross-examiners reasonable latitude to explore relevant areas affecting the case or the credibility of a witness. The outside limits of cross-examination fall within the discretion of the trial judge.

If an area of inquiry extends beyond the scope of direct and does not involve credibility, then the cross-examiner has at least two options. The attorney can request that the judge, in his or her discretion, permit a broader inquiry, or the attorney can call the witness to testify as an adverse or hostile witness during the presentation of the case in chief or during rebuttal.

Factors involved in evaluating and attacking the credibility of a witness include bias, interest, association with the other side, motive, experience, accuracy, memory, demeanor, candor, style, manner of speaking, background, and intelligence.

The following areas should be considered when weighing the credibility of the testimony:

1. Is the testimony consistent with common sense?
2. Is the testimony consistent within itself?
3. Is the testimony consistent with other testimony presented in the case?
4. Is the testimony consistent with the established facts of the case?

SHOULD YOU CROSS-EXAMINE?

The most important decision in cross-examination is whether to cross-examine. The following should be weighed in making that determination:

1. Has the witness hurt the case?
2. Is the witness important to the other side?
3. Will the jury expect cross-examination? Will it affect the case if no cross-examination is done? Was the witness credible?
4. Did the witness leave something out on direct examination that might get in if there is a cross-examination?
5. Was the omission intentionally set up as a trap for the inexperienced cross-examiner?
6. Will cross-examination unavoidably bring out information that is harmful to the case?
7. Are questions being asked only for the sake of asking questions?
8. Does the witness know more than the attorney does about the case?
9. Will the witness be very difficult to control?
10. Has the witness been deposed or given statements?

SHOULD YOU PREPARE WRITTEN QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE?

Cross-examination is most effective when questions are prepared in advance. Most prepared questions will not need to be significantly altered during the trial, but an attorney must retain flexibility to adapt to new material or inconsistencies as they arise.

The areas selected for cross should be structured in a way that clearly shows their purpose and helps the fact finder remember that point. It is advisable to begin and end the cross with strong points.

Close attention to the witnesses on direct examination may reveal signs of deception, lack of assurance, or bluffing that can be explored on cross-examination. The attention shown by the jury or judge may also be a clue.

PREPARATION AND DELIVERY:

BE CONFIDENT.

Close attention to the witnesses on direct examination may reveal signs of deception, lack of assurance, or bluffing that can be explored on cross-examination. The attention shown by the judge may also be a clue.

DO NOT REPEAT DIRECT EXAMINATION: .

Generally, any repetition of the direct examination will only emphasize the opponent’s case. However, repetition of any part of the direct that is supportive of the cross-examiner’s case may be effective, and with careful consideration, may justify the use of an open-ended question or a question that requires an explanatory response.

LEAD THE WITNESS.

Generally, any repetition of the direct examination will only emphasize the opponent’s case. However, repetition of any part of the direct that is supportive of the cross-examiner’s case may be effective, and with careful consideration, may justify the use of an open-ended question or a question that requires an explanatory response.

ASK SIMPLE, SHORT QUESTIONS.

Short, straightforward questions in simple, understandable language are most effective. Broad or confused questions may create problems of understanding for witnesses, attorneys, and the judge.

ASK FACTUAL QUESTIONS:

Questions that seek an opinion or conclusory response may permit the witness to balk or explain an answer. Questions that include fact words and accurate information will force the witness to admit the accuracy of the question.

CONTROL THE WITNESS.

The most effective way to control a witness is to ask short, factual questions. Some witnesses may need to be politely directed to respond; some witnesses may require the intervention and control of the judge.

MAINTAIN COMPOSURE.

An attorney who displays a temper or argues with a witness may irritate the court causing it to side with the witness or the opponent. In addition, such conduct makes thinking difficult and will draw objections.

ADOPT APPROPRIATE APPROACH.

Some witnesses may deserve righteous indignation, others may be attacked, but most need to be carefully and courteously led. A cross-examiner can be very effective by being politely assertive and persistent without having to attack a witness.

STOP WHEN FINISHED.

When the planned questions are asked and the desired information is obtained, the attorney should stop. It may hurt the case more by asking too many questions than by not asking enough.

CONSIDER SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
FOR CERTAIN WITNESSES.

Certain witnesses require special consideration in both the formulation and delivery of questions. These witnesses include children, relatives, spouses, experienced witnesses, investigators, experts, the aged, the handicapped, and those with communication problems. Outside resources may be used to assist in developing tactics to deal with special witnesses.

HOW TO CROSS-EXAMINE EXPERT WITNESSES.

Areas for cross-examination of experts parallel areas for lay witnesses and permit additional areas of inquiry regarding:

1. Their fees.
2. The number of times they have testified before.
3. Whether they routinely testify for the plaintiff or defendant,
4. Their failure to conduct all possible tests
5. The biased source of their information.
6. Their lack of information.
7. The existence of other possible causes or opinions
6. The use of a treatise to impeach.

It is critical for a cross examiner to develop absolute mastery of the expert’s field before examining the expert in a specific area. A well constructed concise hypothetical question may be effective cross examination if it is clear, complete, and well presented and if it elicits an opinion contrary to the testimony on direct examination.

TEN COMMANDMENTS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.

It is helpful to keep in mind Irving Younger’s Ten Commandments for cross-examination:

1. Be brief.
2. Ask short questions and use plain words.
3. Never ask anything but a leading question.
4. Ask only questions to which you already know the answers.
5. Listen to the answer.
6. Do not quarrel with the witness.
7. Do not permit a witness on cross-examination to simply repeat what the witness said on direct examination.
8. Never permit the witness to explain anything.
9. Avoid one question too many.
10. Save it for summation. This is applicable to jury trial. You may save it when you offer your documentary evidence.

These suggestions will not be applicable to all cases and all situations. The cross-examiner who has a legitimate reason for asking such questions—whether or not that reason ‘violates” one of the ten commandments—will conduct an effective cross-examination.

BOOK REFERENCE:

The Trialbook, The Total System for the Preparation and Presentation of a Case. John O. Sonsteng, Roger S. Haydock and James J. Boyd, West Publishing Company.

21/02/2026

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

Tito Sarion vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. Nos. 243029-30, March 18, 2021

ISSUE: Whether heads of offices may validly invoke, as a defense, their good-faith reliance on their subordinates to ensure the legality of transactions they enter into.

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that the doctrine in Arias v. Sandiganbayan, which recognizes that heads of offices may, to a reasonable extent, rely on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, procure supplies, or conduct negotiations, is not a blanket or one-size-fits-all rule that may be invoked to evade liability for malversation and graft. It is not a magic cloak that can be used as a cover by a public officer to conceal himself in the shadows of his subordinates and necessarily escape accountability.

It noted that when there are circumstances that should have alerted heads of offices to exercise a higher degree of circumspection in the performance of their duties, they cannot invoke the doctrine to escape liability. In this scenario, heads of offices are expected to exercise more diligence and go beyond what their subordinates have prepared. In addition, the presumption of regularity cannot be used as a valid legal defense when the official act in question is irregular on its face. In this case, the SC finds the existence of such circumstances which could have alerted the petitioner to inquire further prior to his approval of the disbursement voucher, beyond the certifications & documents issued by his subordinates. Hence, it sustained the accused conviction for malversation and graft.

21/02/2026

📣 𝗦𝗘𝗖 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

The Securities and Exchange Commission has released Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2026, providing updated guidelines on reportorial compliance and the scale of penalties to ensure uniform monitoring and enforcement.

These guidelines aim to strengthen compliance standards and support transparency under the Revised Corporation Code.

🔗 Read the full Memorandum Circular here: https://www.sec.gov.ph/mc-2026/sec-mc-no-10-series-of-2026/

11/02/2026

SC Issues Guidelines: Reinstatement-Wage Computation Starts on the Date of the Labor Arbiter’s Reinstatement Order and Runs Until Its Final Reversal by a Higher Tribunal

An employee who is ordered reinstated by a Labor Arbiter is entitled to reinstatement wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision until the final reversal of such decision by a Higher Court, regardless of any interim reversals by the NLRC or other tribunals. - Supreme Court, Per GAERLAN, J.

Read the full story in the comment section.

11/02/2026

Supreme Court: Registry return receipt alone does not prove service of a judgment by registered mail; due process warrants relaxing technical rules in exceptional cases |

The Supreme Court has issued a landmark decision in G.R. No. 251903, emphasizing that the mere presentation of a registry return receipt is insufficient to prove service of a judgment by registered mail. The Court ruled that an affidavit from the postmaster or the person who mailed the judgment, detailing the date, place, and manner of service, is also required.

The case was remanded to the Civil Service Commission for resolution on the merits, ensuring that the parties are given a full opportunity to present their causes and defenses.

Read the full story in the comment section.

07/02/2026

SC: Constructive notice rule does not apply to Bigamy; prescription runs from discovery, not registration |
.”constructive notice cannot apply in the crime of Bigamy notwithstanding that its application may be more favorable to the accused.. The application of constructive notice would then render the prosecution of the violators of the crime almost impossible.” -Supreme Court, Per GAERLAN, J.

Read the full story in the comment section.

07/02/2026

07/02/2026

Preventive Suspension Is Valid When Employee Poses a Serious and Imminent Threat to Employer Property, Even if Ownership Is Disputed |

Preventive suspension is a legitimate management prerogative that may be imposed if the employee’s continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the employer’s property or to co-workers, even if the ownership of the property in question is still under dispute, provided that the suspension does not exceed the 30-day limit under the Labor Code. -Supreme Court, Per GAERLAN, J.

Read the full story in the comment section.

05/02/2026