The Law Offices of Kiat-ong, Reynante, Wanason and Associates

04/11/2025

The (SC) has ruled that when a Filipino asks a Philippine court to recognize a foreign divorce, they only need to prove the law of the country where the divorce was obtained – not the law of their foreign spouse’s nationality.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division sent a case back to the Court of Appeals (CA) to give a Filipina a chance to properly prove the divorce laws of Kentucky, United States of America (U.S.A).

The Filipina married a Peruvian citizen in New Jersey, U.S.A; they later settled in Kentucky. Due to marital issues, the husband ended the marriage by obtaining a divorce decree from a Kentucky court.

The Filipina then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court in the Philippines to have the divorce recognized. She submitted a copy of the divorce decree, along with printouts of Kentucky and Peruvian marriage laws.

The SC clarified that in recognition of foreign divorce cases, what matters is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree. Since the divorce was granted in Kentucky, only Kentucky law needed to be proven.

The SC explained that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, a Filipino may remarry if their foreign spouse gets a valid divorce abroad that allows them to remarry. Philippine courts must first determine if the divorce was valid under the applicable foreign law, and the Filipino spouse must prove this law.

The SC also emphasized the relevance of the international law principle of comity of nations. This principle allows judicial acts of one country – such as court rulings or decrees – to be recognized in another, based on mutual respect between states. It also acknowledges the authority of a foreign state not only over its citizens but also over other individuals under its jurisdiction, like legal residents.

However, the SC returned the case to the CA to give the Filipina, who submitted a mere printout of Kentucky law, a chance to submit the proper documents.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4jhyh8vv.

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

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

04/11/2025

Newly uploaded pleadings in cases involving public interest:

G.R. Nos. 228374-84 (Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan [5th Division] and People of the Philippines)
- Petition for Certiorarihttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R-228374-84-Vol-I.pdf
- Memorandumhttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R.-228374-84-Vol-II.pdf
- Notice and Motionhttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R-228374-84-Vol-III.pdf

G.R. No. 236268 (People of the Philippines vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan [Special Fifth Division] and Jose “Jinggoy” P. Ejercito Estrada)
- Manifestationhttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R.-236268-Vol-I.pdf
- Memorandumhttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R.-236268-Vol-II.pdf

G.R. No. 249296 (Janet Lim Napoles vs. Honorable Rafael R. Lagos, et al.)
- Petition for Certiorarihttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R-249296-Vol-I.pdf
- Concurring and Dissenting Opinionhttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R-249296-Vol-II.pdf
- Motion for Extensionhttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R-249296-Vol-III.pdf

G.R. No. 249919 (Jose “Jinggoy” P. Ejercito Estrada vs. People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan [Fifth Division])
- Petition for Certiorarihttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R-249919-Vol-I.pdf
- Replyhttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R-249919-Vol-II.pdf

G.R. Nos. 254892 and 254906-15 (Jose “Jinggoy” P. Ejercito Estrada vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan [5th Division], People of the Philippines, et al.)
- Petition for Certiorarihttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/G-R-254892-and-254906-15-Vol-I.pdf

Copies of recent pleadings involving public interest are regularly uploaded to the Public Pleadings page of the website. SCAN the QR Code for the latest uploads.

07/08/2025

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

09/07/2025

The (SC) has recognized that a sudden outburst of uncontrolled emotions, triggered by years of abuse from the accused’s father, qualifies as passion or obfuscation – a mitigating circumstance that can reduce the penalty for parricide.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of accused Leopoldo Singcol’s (Singcol) for killing his father, but lowered the penalty due to the presence of this mitigating factor.

Case records show that during a heated argument, Singcol’s father attempted to attack him with a bolo, but the former stumbled and fell. Singcol then grabbed the bolo and stabbed his father in the chest, killing him.

Singcol thereafter encountered his sister-in-law and her two-year-old son; he fatally stabbed his sister-in-law, and injured the child.

During trial, Singcol admitted to stabbing his father, his sister-in-law, and the child. He claimed he suffered abuse from his father since childhood, and was thus not thinking clearly when he attacked the others.

While the SC agreed with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that self-defense was not applicable in this case, it ruled that passion or obfuscation should be considered as a mitigating factor or circumstance that lessens the penalty. It sentenced Singcol to two counts of reclusion perpetua or a maximum of 40 years in prison for the parricide and the murder of his sister-in-law.

Under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, the crime of parricide is committed when the accused kills their parents or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of their ascendants or descendants, or legal spouse.

On the other hand, passion or obfuscation is a state of mind present when a crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of emotions triggered by previous unjust or improper acts.

The SC considered the parricide a result of “a sudden surge of the accused’s bottled-up feelings caused by paternal neglect since childhood,” as shown by Singcol’s narration and his extreme, irrational acts of self-harm immediately after the killing.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/5yk5j7sr.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4xm6xee3.

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

02/07/2025

22/04/2025

The (SC) has affirmed the life imprisonment sentence of a man who trafficked three minors to work as domestic helpers in distant towns, without pay.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of Joemarie Ubanon for qualified human trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

In 2014, Ubanon offered two 14-year-olds and a 15-year-old in Bukidnon a monthly wage of PHP 2,500.00 to work an onion peelers. He transported them from Bukidnon to Marawi City, where the minors were sent to different homes in Lanao del Sur and Iligan City to work as domestic helpers. They were not paid for their labor.

Ubanon was found guilty of qualified trafficking and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appealing before the SC, Ubanon claimed that there was no proof he recruited or transported the minors for forced labor.

The SC denied his appeal, ruling that all elements of qualified trafficking under the law were present.

Trafficking occurs when persons are recruited or transported– whether or not they give consent - through deception, coercion, or abuse of power for exploitative purposes like prostitution or forced labor. When the victims are minors, the offense becomes qualified trafficking, which carries a penalty of life imprisonment.

Ordering Ubanon to pay a fine of PHP 2 million and PHP 600,000 per victim as damages, the SC rejected Ubanon’s claim that there was no direct evidence that he participated in transporting the victims to Marawi City to render forced labor.

In this case, Ubanon took advantage of the minors’ age and need for money, convinced them to accept the job, and personally brought them to the terminal and to their final destination, where they were exploited and unpaid.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/bdfh392p.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4h8b7s8a.

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

11/04/2025

The (SC) has clarified that the time limit or prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes, including those under the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Rules of Expedited Procedures), stops running once a complaint is filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ), not when the case reaches the court.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc abandoned its rulings in the 2023 cases of Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People, which previously held that the prescriptive period for crimes covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules on Summary Procedure) stops only when the information is filed in court.

The Rules on Summary Procedure applied to cases handled by first-level courts and cover crimes including those punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 1,000. This was replaced in 2022 by the Rules on Expedited Procedures, which expanded the coverage of summary procedure to include those crimes punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 50,000.

In 2024, the DOJ issued its Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation, which provide that a summary investigation shall be done if the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of up to one year.

Given these developments, the SC clarified that the prescriptive period for crimes is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecution and the start of the summary investigation. This ruling will apply prospectively.

The SC recognized that while criminal cases should ideally be resolved promptly, delays are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, the State, as the offended party, should not be disadvantaged by delays in the DOJ’s preliminary investigations, even in criminal cases under summary procedure.

The SC also clarified that under Section 281 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses that are not immediately known starts from the time the violation is discovered. The prescriptive period is interrupted once a preliminary investigation begins.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/26tfrr38.

The full text of the SC En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 258563 shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.

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

03/04/2025

For legal consultation and notarization of documents, you can visit us in any of our offices.

Main Office

Suite 206 2/F Golden Court Building, Magsaysay Avenue, 2600 Baguio City (https://www.google.com/maps/dir//RM.+206+2%2FF,+GOLDEN+COURT+BUILDING,+Magsaysay+Ave,+Baguio,+2600+Benguet/@16.4181181,120.5125847,12z/data=!4m8!4m7!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x3391a12ad8a0adfb:0x500dc3ee1a4f5514!2m2!1d120.5949865!2d16.4181342?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)

Annex Office

Suite 203 2/F Jose Miguel Building, Corner Yandoc St., Naguilian Road, Kayang Extension, 2600 Baguio City (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/15.7876224,120.9761792/Jose+Miguel+Building,+Yandoc+St,+Baguio,+Benguet/@16.0984375,120.4131706,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m1!4e1!1m5!1m1!1s0x3391a165e7738f5f:0x36b6bdcf8d81b731!2m2!1d120.5907461!2d16.4147395?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)

Schedule:
Monday- Friday- 9:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M
Weekends and Long Holidays- by Appointment

Contact Information:

Email: [email protected]
Messenger: The Law Offices of Kiat-ong, Reynante, Wanason and Associates
Website: https://www.lawofficekrw.com/contact-us?fbclid=IwY2xjawJazTpleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWxDLRU6cuMwT6o3JtMx22DZgxmc_IMYZ_OV0N_SX397RD1xX_pmAh5xcQ_aem_PGxyh9pojfhvv7fR6OvKgw

Established in Baguio City, The Law Offices of Kiat-ong, Reynante, Wanason, and Associates offers compassionate, personalized legal services, including counseling, litigation, and dispute resolution, with integrity and professionalism.

02/04/2025

We are thrilled to announce the official launch of the new digital home of The Law Office of Kiat-ong, Reynante, Wanason and Associates!

🌐 Visit our website: https://www.lawofficekrw.com/
Our new online platform is more than just a website—it's your gateway to comprehensive legal expertise. Whether you're seeking guidance in litigation, notarization of documents, or need expert legal counsel, we're here to support you.

Key Features of the website:
✅ Easy navigation
✅ Comprehensive practice area insights
✅ Direct communication channels

Explore. Connect. Get Legal Support.

Our website is designed and developed in collaboration with IOL Inc. Visit their website at https://www.iol.ph/ for more information and assistance on digitalization.

Established in Baguio City, The Law Offices of Kiat-ong, Reynante, Wanason, and Associates offers compassionate, personalized legal services, including counseling, litigation, and dispute resolution, with integrity and professionalism.