Carpio and Alawas Law Office

02/09/2025

The (SC) has reiterated the rules in determining the appropriate legal actions for recovery of possession and/or ownership of land and the corresponding prescriptive periods in filing them. These remedies are: 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or ejectment, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖, and 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC 𝙀𝙣 𝘽𝙖𝙣𝙘 held that Lea Victa-Espinosa (Espinosa) correctly filed an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 to recover possession of her land within a year from dispossession. It explained that 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 may be filed not only when the dispossession lasted for a year but also when it lasted for a year or less when there is no allegation that the deprivation is by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

The SC also ruled that Espinosa’s action is not 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 as she did not seek in her complaint the recovery of ownership of the land.

After purchasing the property, Espinosa found that Spouses Noel and Leny Agullo were occupying a part of it. When they refused to leave despite her demand, Espinosa filed a complaint for recovery of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The RTC dismissed the complaint for being filed too early. It explained that Espinosa may still file forcible entry, an ejectment suit, within one year from the time she learned of the deprivation of physical possession of the land. Since an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 can only be filed after that one-year period, RTC ruled that her complaint was premature.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that Espinosa’s complaint was not an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 but an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖, as she sought to recover possession based on her ownership of the property.

In their Petition before the SC, Spouses Agullo sought to reinstate the ruling of the RTC dismissing the case and insisted that Espinosa’s case was an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 that was filed prematurely, as less than a year had passed since the alleged dispossession.

The Court denied the Petition but clarified that the action is not accion reivindicatoria but accion publiciana. It reiterated the actions available for recovery of possession and/or ownership of land:

• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or a summary ejectment case;
• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖; and
• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or summary ejectment proceeding is filed to recover physical possession of land when the dispossession was due to force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and has not lasted for more than a year.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 is filed when the dispossession lasted for more than a year, or even for a year or less, if it is not due to force, intimidation, or similar means.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 is filed to recover both ownership and possession based on that ownership.

The Court explained that in 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖, the issue is who has the better right to possess the land, without necessarily claiming ownership. In contrast, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 involves determining who owns the land, with possession granted to the rightful owner.

As what is sought in the complaint is recovery of possession and not ownership, and there is no allegation that Spouses Agullo disputed Espinosa’s title, the action is 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 and not 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

The Court also held that contrary to the findings of the RTC, the action was not premature, because 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 may be filed even within one year from dispossession if no force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth was used. Since Espinosa did not claim that Spouses Agullo used any of these means, the action was correctly filed not as ejectment suit but 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖.

The SC thus ordered the RTC to proceed to trial and decide the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/y7nr9hzx

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/38e2xzfa

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

25/08/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) has granted the claim for a tax refund of a construction firm that paid P325 million in tax despite the absence of any valid assessment justifying the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to collect the same.

In a 15-page ruling written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc’s ruling and found that Stradcom Corporation is entitled to tax refund claims.

In 2012, Stradcom filed its Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 2011 with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). A year later, the company received a letter from BIR demanding payment of P488 million in deficiency income taxes for the said year.

Due to Stradcom's failure to comply, the BIR subsequently issued a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) and a Warrant of Garnishment (WOG) over its bank account with Land Bank of the Philippines.

Stradcom then submitted a letter to the BIR seeking the cancellation of the WDL and WOG on the ground that the issuance thereof was against its right to due process, as no Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and a Final Assessment Notice (FAN) were issued for the corporation's supposed tax liabilities. However, the BIR denied the same, saying the company's income tax liabilities were already due and demandable.

In order to lift and cancel the WDL and WOG, Stradcom paid in cash their supposed tax liabilities. Thereafter, the company filed an administrative claim for a refund for alleged erroneously collected basic tax and interest, but due to BIR's inaction, Stradcom filed a petition with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

The CTA Division ruled in favor of Stradcom and ordered BIR to refund the tax they erroneously collected. The said ruling was later upheld by the CTA En Banc, prompting the BIR to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the above dispositions, the high court ordered the BIR to refund the PHP 325,381,412 tax it erroneously collected to Stradcom.

It held that the BIR cannot solely rely on the doctrine of self-assessment to justify the resort to summary administrative remedies in collecting tax liabilities; they may be invoked only when the taxes sought to be collected have already become delinquent, whether by the taxpayer's own admission or by virtue of a valid formal assessment.

The SC noted that the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) provides two types of remedies to enforce the collection of unpaid taxes: (a) summary administrative remedies, such as the distraint and/or levy of the taxpayer's property, and/or (b) judicial remedies, such as the filing of a criminal or civil action against the erring taxpayer.

It explained that the BIR can only avail of the summary administrative collection remedies the moment it establishes that the taxes sought to be collected have become delinquent, which it failed to do.

The high court emphasized that a self-assessed delinquency presupposes that the taxpayer has acknowledged a tax obligation in its return and failed to pay it within the prescribed period. It found that Stradcom's AITR reflects no such liability—only a net loss. Without a taxpayer-admitted obligation, there is simply nothing to pay.

The SC also agreed with the ruling of both the CTA Division and CTA En Banc that an assessment without observance of the due process requirements is a patent nullity. It maintains that the BIR violated the company's right to due process by not issuing an assessment notice informing it of the amount and the reasons for the alleged income tax liabilities.

“To allow the BIR to enforce tax collection through summary administrative remedies without a valid assessment violates the taxpayer's right to due process. It would render the assessment process meaningless, as the BIR could simply declare a tax delinquency at will and initiate collection without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to contest the alleged liability,” the Supreme Court said.

“The Court recognizes the vital role of tax collection in ensuring the government's continued operations; this commitment must never come at the expense of legality. The failure to adhere to due process not only jeopardizes the integrity of tax administration but also erodes public trust in the government's authority,” it added.

15/08/2025

14/08/2025

14/08/2025

04/06/2025

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that in drug cases, prosecutors must raise all their objections when an accused offers to plead guilty to a lesser crime. Any objections not raised are considered waived.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) ruling that found Rodulfo Ferraren Aquino (Aquino) guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002.

The SC also updated its 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢-𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 as set forth in the 2022 case of 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰, by adding the following guidelines:

1. If the prosecution objects to a plea bargaining motion but cites only some possible grounds, any other ground not raised is considered waived.

2. If the prosecution raises several objections, but the trial court addresses only one, the appellate court or the SC shall direct the trial court to resolve the remaining issues based on the Montierro guidelines and this case.

3. If the records before the appellate court or the SC are incomplete and it is unclear whether either of the above scenarios applies, the trial court shall be directed to rule again on the matter, applying the principles in 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰 and this case.

Aquino was charged with selling and possessing shabu. He asked the RTC to allow him to plead guilty to a lesser crime, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, for both charges. The prosecution agreed to the plea bargain for the possession charge but objected to the plea for the drug sale charge, saying it violated Department of Justice (DOJ) rules. The RTC, however, granted Aquino’s plea.

The SC, agreeing with the RTC, reiterated the 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰 ruling that courts may reject the prosecution’s objection to a plea bargain in drug cases if the only reason for the objection is that the plea violates rules, provided the plea follows the SC’s official plea bargaining framework.

However, the SC also clarified that courts do not have unlimited authority and cannot reject the prosecution’s objection if it is based on valid grounds, such as if the accused is not qualified for plea bargaining, or if the plea does not follow the SC’s approved guidelines.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/y627x9fk.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4pcu6ke3.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/5898sb24.

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

30/05/2025

The (SC) has ruled that corporations that own units in a condominium can send representatives to sit on the condominium’s Board of Directors, even if they are themselves not unit owners.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division upheld the election of the group of Gregorio Pastorfide, Ramona Matibag, Cecil Monteblanco, and Roland Agustin Angeles (respondents) to the Board of Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corporation (MPMCC).

Respondents were elected not as private persons but as official representatives of corporations that own units in the building. However, unit owner Peter Rico Rodriguez (Rodriguez) filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that only actual unit owners should be allowed to sit on the Board.

Upholding the respondents’ authority to sit on the Board as representatives, the SC ruled that it is the corporation – not the individual – that is the actual member sitting on the Board. Since corporations can act only through people, their authorized representatives carry out corporate duties, including being nominated and elected to the Board.

The SC added that banning representatives from participating on behalf of their corporations would be unfair and unreasonable.

Additionally, MPMCC’s By-Laws give corporate representatives full authority over all matters concerning the corporation. Thus, respondents have the right to vote and to sit as members of MPMCC’s Board on behalf of their respective corporations.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/bffvky3z.

Read the full text of the Decision at
https://tinyurl.com/bde2pcbm.

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

30/05/2025

Nagpasya ang na ang mga korporasyong nagmamay-ari ng mga unit sa isang condominium ay maaaring magpadala ng mga kinatawan para maupo sa Board of Directors ng condominium kahit na sila mismo ay hindi mga may-ari ng condo unit.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, kinatigan ng Third Division ng Korte ang pagkakaluklok kina Gregorio Pastorfide, Ramona Matibag, Cecil L. Monteblanco, at Roland Agustin Angeles sa Board of Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corporation (MPMCC).

Nahalal sina Pastorfide at iba pa hindi bilang mga pribadong tao kundi bilang mga opisyal na kinatawan ng mga korporasyong nagmamay-ari ng mga unit sa gusali.

Pero nagsampa ng kaso ang may-ari ng isang unit na si Peter Rico F. Rodriguez (Rodriguez) sa Regional Trial Court (RTC). Giit niya, tanging mga aktwal na may-ari ng unit lamang ang dapat na payagang maupo sa Board.

Sumang-ayon ang RTC kay Rodriguez pero binaliktad ng Court of Appeals (CA) ang desisyong ng RTC.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon ng CA na ang korporasyon at hindi ang indibidwal ang aktwal na miyembro na nakaupo sa Board. Dahil ang mga korporasyon ay maaaring kumilos lamang sa pamamagitan ng mga tao o ang kanilang mga awtorisadong kinatawan na nagsasagawa ng mga tungkulin ng korporasyon, kabilang ang pagiging nominado at pagkakaluklok sa Board.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, ang pagbabawal sa mga kinatawan na lumahok sa ngalan ng kanilang mga korporasyon ay hindi magiging patas at hindi makatwiran.

Bukod pa rito, binibigyan din ng By-Laws ng MPMCC ang mga kinatawan ng korporasyon ng buong awtoridad sa lahat ng bagay na may kinalaman sa korporasyon.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://tinyurl.com/bffvky3z.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/bde2pcbm.

13/03/2025

Women in leadership embody both resilience and compassion, leading with wisdom and integrity. They uphold discipline while fostering inclusivity, ensuring that governance is not just about rules but about creating meaningful impact. Whether at work or at home, they balance strength with empathy, making decisions that drive progress and empower communities.

As Director of the SEC Baguio Extension Office, Regina May M. Cajucom-De Guzman ensures that corporate and securities regulations are consistently enforced across the Cordillera Administrative Region. She leads efforts to provide accessible SEC services, strengthen regional compliance, and build strong partnerships with local government units and organizations.

This , we celebrate the power of women in leadership and their impact on business, regulation, and economic development. Because when , we all move forward together.

13/03/2025

🔠 Word of the Day Wednesday: INSIDER TRADING

Under the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), insider trading refers to the unlawful buying or selling of securities by insiders while in possession of material information with respect to the issuer or the securities that is not generally available to the public.

The following are considered insiders: the issuer itself; a director, officer, or any person controlling the issuer; individuals whose current or former relationship with the issuer grants them access to confidential information; government employees, exchange officials, or those in regulatory bodies with privileged access to non-public material information; and anyone who acquires such information from any of the aforementioned insiders.

Rule 27.2 of the SRC Rules describes material nonpublic information as “information that has not been disclosed to the public and would either likely affect the market price of the security when disseminated to the public or would be an important consideration by a reasonable man to either buy, sell or hold certain security.”

The law prohibits and penalizes such transactions to ensure fairness, transparency, and integrity in the capital market, preventing individuals and entities from manipulating the market and gaining an unfair advantage over other investors.

When it comes to investing, information is truly empowering but only if it’s available to everyone equally.