Tumbaga-Calagan Law Office

02/10/2026

⚖️⚖️⚖️.

The has voided a couple’s marriage after finding that they falsely claimed five years of cohabitation to avoid obtaining a marriage license.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition of the Republic of the Philippines which sought to declare a couple’s marriage valid despite the absence of a marriage license.

The couple had lived together as husband and wife since December 2003. In 2006, the husband left for Israel to work and returned in 2009 to marry his wife. To facilitate their marriage without the required license, the couple executed an 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, claiming they had lived together for six years and were thus exempt from the marriage license requirement under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In 2013, the husband filed a petition to declare the marriage void, arguing the 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 they executed was false because he was in Israel for most of the period it covered.

The SC explained that while Article 3(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 provides that one of the formal requisites of a marriage is a valid marriage license, Article 34 of the same provides an exception to this requirement for couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal impediment to marry each other.

Citing the 2000 case of 𝘕𝘪ñ𝘢𝘭 𝘷. 𝘉𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘨, the SC stressed that the five-year cohabitation period is counted back from the marriage date. The couple must have lived together continuously and exclusively, without interruption or a third party.

In this case, the SC said that the testimony of the husband showed the couple had not lived together continuously for five years, making their 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to the solemnizing officer false. His testimony also supported the finding that they failed to meet the five-year requirement.

The SC found that from 2001 to 2004, before the husband left for Israel, they lived separately and only occasionally shared a rented room with relatives. From 2005 to 2009, while the husband was in Israel, there was no evidence that they presented themselves as spouses or that he intended to return to the Philippines to live with his wife.

The SC thus ruled that there was not enough evidence to prove that the couple continuously and exclusively cohabited as husband and wife for a period of five years immediately preceding the celebration of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174170.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168047.

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

01/10/2026

Ang “MOJON” na karaniwang naririnig sa mga usaping may kinalaman sa lupa. Ito ay nagsisilbing marka sa hangganan ng isang lote. Ang bawat mojon ay may mga letrang nakaukit sa ibabaw nito. Alamin ang kahulugan ng mga letrang ito. 👇👇👇

27/09/2026

🕊️OPEN🕊️
09.28.2026

20/09/2026

MCLE

18/09/2026

⚖️⚖️⚖️

The has reiterated that what Republic Act No. 9262, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2004, criminalizes is not marital infidelity by itself but the psychological violence that goes with it causing mental or emotional suffering to the wife.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of a husband for violation of Section 5(i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, which penalizes the act of causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to a woman or her child.

Married in 1999, the husband and wife’s marital problems began in 2009, when the husband started coming home late and grew distant from his family. In January 2010, the husband sent his wife text messages saying he would no longer return home, wanted to start a new life alone, and intended to seek the nullity of their marriage. The wife later discovered that her husband was living with another woman.

The husband was charged with psychological violence before the Regional Trial Court. During trial, the wife claimed that her husband’s actions caused her severe mental and emotional suffering, and loss of self-esteem and dignity. She said she experienced depression and attempted to take her own life several times.

The psychologist who evaluated the wife found signs of depression, including feelings of inferiority, sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, and problems relating with others. The psychologist linked these emotional difficulties to the wife’s conflict with her husband and his abandonment of the family for another woman.

The SC affirmed in full the finding that the husband is guilty of psychological violence under the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵, sentencing the husband to up to eight years in prison and ordering him to pay a PHP 100,000 fine and PHP 30,000 in moral damages to his wife. The SC also directed him to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC explained that, depending on the circumstances, an extramarital relationship may or may not cause mental or emotional anguish to the wife. Infidelity may be one of the acts through which psychological violence is committed, but the resulting mental or emotional suffering must still be proven.

In this case, the SC held that the wife’s testimony, psychological evaluation, and other witness testimonies sufficiently proved that her husband’s acts caused her mental and emotional suffering.

Read the full text of the Press Release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=173362.

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268619-###-vs-people-of-the-philippines/.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168031.

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

24/08/2026

Nagpasya ang na hindi maaaring singilin ng bangko ang isang depositor sa perang na-withdraw nito kung ang pagkawala ng pera ay dulot ng mismong gross negligence o matinding kapabayaan ng bangko.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, isinantabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon na inihain ng BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO) at sinabi na maituturing na matinding kapabayaan ang hindi pagsunod ng bangko sa sarili nitong patakaran.

Nag-ugat ang kaso sa pagdeposito ni Cristina Barcellano (Barcellano) ng isang regional check na nagkakahalaga ng PHP 151,200 mula sa sangay ng Landbank sa Albay sa kanyang savings account sa sangay ng BDO sa Lucena City.

Nagkamali ang teller ng BDO sa pag-validate ng tseke bilang local check sa halip na regional check. Dahil dito, na-credit ang halaga makalipas lamang ng tatlong banking days sa halip na pitong araw.

Sa paniniwalang maaari nang gamitin ang pera, nag-withdraw si Barcellano ng PHP 76,000. Di nagtagal, nakatanggap ang BDO ng stop payment order para sa tseke at hiniling kay Barcellano na isauli ang pera. Bagama’t pumayag siya, hindi niya naibalik ang nasabing halaga. Kalaunan, tumanggi ang BDO na ilabas ang natitirang balanse at nagsampa ng reklamong kriminal para sa estafa.

Kapwa pinawalang-sala ng Regional Trial Court at ng Court of Appeals si Barcellano matapos mapag-alamang walang pandaraya, panlilinlang, o pang-aabuso sa tiwala sa kanyang panig, at ang sariling kapabayaan ng BDO ang naging sanhi ng insidente.

Sa Korte Suprema, hiniling ng BDO na repasuhin ang aspekto ng pananagutang sibil ng kaso. Iginiit nitong sa kabila ng pagpapawalang-sala kay Barcellano, dapat pa rin siyang atasan na isauli ang pera. Ayon sa BDO, ang pagtanggi niyang isauli ito ay nagresulta sa unjust enrichment o hindi makatarungang pagpapayaman. Dagdag nito, dahil nailabas ang pondo dahil sa pagkakamali nito sa pagproseso ng tseke, obligado si Barcellano na isauli ang pera batay sa prinsipyo ng solutio indebiti na nag-aatas sa pagsasauli ng perang natanggap dahil sa pagkakamali.

Hindi sumang-ayon ng Korte Suprema. Walang unjust enrichment dahil nabigo ang BDO na patunayang tinanggap nito ang isang benepisyo na hindi para sa kanya.

Sa kasong ito, hindi ipinaliwanag ng bangko kung bakit naglabas ng stop payment order o ipinakita na alam ni Barcellano na hindi mababayaran ang tseke. Sa halip, ipinakita ng mga ebidensiya na nag-withdraw siya ng pera nang may mabuting loob matapos mismong gawing available ng BDO ang pondo sa kanyang account.

Dagdag pa nito, ang mismong gross negligence ng BDO ang naging sanhi ng pagkalugi nito. Napag-alaman na na-credit ng bangko ang tseke bago ito maayos na na-clear, napagkamalan nitong local check ang regional check, at hindi nito natukoy ang pagkakamali hanggang sa matanggap nito ang stop payment order. Ipinakita ng mga pagkukulang na ito na hindi nasunod ng bangko ang mga pangunahing pag-iingat na nilalayong protektahan ito laban sa mga panganib na dulot ng mga tsekeng hindi wasto o hindi mababayaran.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171657.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/.

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

24/08/2026

⚖️⚖️⚖️

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a bank cannot require a depositor to return money they already withdrew on the ground of unjust enrichment when the loss was caused by the bank’s own gross negligence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition filed by BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO), holding that the bank’s disregard of its own banking policy amounted to gross negligence.

The case stemmed from Cristina Barcellano’s (Barcellano) deposit of a regional check worth PHP 151,200 from an Albay branch of Landbank into her savings account at BDO’s Lucena City branch.

The BDO teller mistakenly validated the check as local instead of regional, allowing the amount to be credited after only three banking days instead of the required seven.

Believing the funds were available, Barcellano withdrew PHP 76,000. Shortly after, BDO received a stop payment order on the check and demanded that she return the money. Although Barcellano initially agreed, she never repaid the amount. BDO later refused to release the remaining balance and filed a criminal complaint for estafa.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals acquitted Barcellano, finding no fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence on her part and blamed BDO’s own negligence.

Before the SC, BDO asked for a review of the civil aspect of the case, arguing that despite Barcellano's acquittal, she should still be required to return the money. BDO argued that her refusal amounted to unjust enrichment and that since the funds were released due to its error in processing the check, Barcellano was required to return them based on the principle of 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪, which requires the repayment of money received by mistake.

The SC disagreed, ruling that there was no unjust enrichment because BDO failed to prove that Barcellano knowingly received and retained a benefit to which she was not entitled.

SC declared that the bank did not explain why the stop payment order was issued or show that Barcellano knew the check would not be honored. Instead, the evidence showed that she withdrew the money in good faith after BDO itself made the funds available in her account.

The SC also ruled that BDO’s own gross negligence caused its loss. It found that the bank credited the check before it had properly cleared it, incorrectly treated a regional check as a local check, and failed to detect the error until after receiving the stop payment order. These lapses showed a failure to observe basic safeguards meant to protect the bank from the risks of invalid checks.

The SC also rejected BDO’s reliance on solutio indebiti. Although the doctrine generally requires the return of money received by mistake, it does not apply when the mistake resulted from the payor’s own gross negligence. Here, BDO’s error stemmed from its failure to exercise the extraordinary diligence and reasonable prudence required of banks.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171657

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/

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

24/08/2026

Not every setback means you should quit. Not every delay means you're failing. There will be moments that shake your confidence, test your patience, and make you wonder if it's worth it. But those moments don't get to decide where your story ends.

Instead of giving up, hold on a little tighter. The road may be rough right now, but that doesn't mean you won't reach your destination. Some roads are rough not to stop you, but to remind you that you're stronger than the journey you're afraid of.

So fasten your seatbelt, take a deep breath, and keep moving forward. The view will be worth it. And one day, you'll thank yourself for not getting out of the car.

24/08/2026

Hindi itinuring ng na “advertisement” sa ilalim ng PD No. 957 o 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦 na parte ng mga “warranty” ng developer ang pangako ng ahente na mag-iisyu ng 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘭 matapos mabayaran ang 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘦𝘦 ngunit inatasan pa rin nito ang 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 na ibalik sa nakabili ang binayad matapos hindi tuparin ng ahente ang nasabing pangako.

Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, inatasan ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng ng Korte Suprema ang Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. (Empire East) na isauli ang mga ibinayad ni John Edrem Bautista (Bautista) matapos itong mabigong mag-isyu ng ipinangakong 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘭 .

Nagbayad si Bautista ng PHP 130,000 para sa isang 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵 sa Empire East na binubuo ng PHP 20,000 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘦𝘦 at PHP 110,000 na karagdagang bayad. Ayon kay Bautista, nagbayad siya dahil nangako ang ahente ng Empire East na mag-iisyu ng 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘭 kapag nabayaran na niya ang 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘦𝘦. Nang lumipas ang mahigit isang taon at hindi pa rin naibigay ang kontrata, itinigil ni Bautista ang pagbabayad at hiniling ang pagsasauli ng kanyang mga ibinayad.

Sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema sa naging desisyon ng Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) at Court of Appeals na pabor kay Bautista. Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema na karapat-dapat makatanggap si Bautista ng refund, pero nilinaw din nito na hindi saklaw ng Seksyon 19 ng PD 957 ang pangako ng ahente.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na ang Seksyon 19, na nag-aatas na maging totoo at hindi mapanlinlang ang mga 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 at 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭, ay nalalapat lamang sa mga materyal na inilaan para sa pangkalahatang publiko, gaya ng mga inilalathala sa mga pahayagan o ipinapalabas sa radyo, telebisyon, at iba pang katulad na paraan ng 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. Hindi nito saklaw ang mga pangakong ginagawa ng ahente sa mga indibidwal na mamimili.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na nananatiling protektado ang mga mamimili dahil maaari pa ring managot ang mga 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 sa ilalim ng kanilang mga obligasyong kontraktuwal at iba pang naaangkop na batas.

Inatasan nito ang Empire East na isauli kay Bautista ang PHP 130,000, na may interes na 6% kada taon mula nang ihain ang reklamo noong 2012, at magbayad ng PHP 260,000 bilang 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 o danyos na iginagawad ng mga hukuman para pigilan ang maling pagkilos at magsilbing babala laban sa mga katulad na gawain.

Basahin ang 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171359.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/272556-1.pdf.

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

18/08/2026

⚖️⚖️⚖️

Inabsuwelto ng ang isang babae sa kasong 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘺. Ayon sa Korte, maaaring gamiting depensa ang naunang kasal na walang bisa na mula pa sa simula (𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘣 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰), kahit wala pang naunang desisyon ng hukuman na nagpapawalang-bisa rito.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Kasangguning Mahistrado Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, binaligtad ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang mga naunang desisyon ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) ng Pampanga at Court of Appeals (CA) na humatol kay Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira (Lapira) na nagkasala sa 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘺.

Kinasuhan si Lapira ng 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘺 sa ilalim ng Artikulo 349 ng Revised Penal Code dahil sa pagpapakasal niya kay Jimmy Fariscal habang kasal pa siya kay Takahiko Sato, batay sa 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 na inisyu ng Office of the Civil Registrar General.

Sa paglilitis, iginiit ni Lapira na walang bisa ang kanyang kasal kay Sato dahil walang isinagawang seremonya at walang naisyung 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦—mga rekisitong kinakailangan para magkaroon ng bisa ang kasal. Kinumpirma rin ng Local Civil Registrar na walang rekord ng aplikasyon para sa 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 nina Lapira at Sato.

Sa pag-absuwelto kay Lapira, ginamit ng Korte Suprema ang naging pasya nito sa kasong Pulido v. People noong 2021. Ayon sa naturang desisyon, maaaring direktang igiit ng isang akusado sa kasong 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘺 na walang bisa ang nauna nitong kasal bilang depensa, kahit wala pang naunang deklarasyon mula sa hukuman na nagpapawalang-bisa rito.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na isa sa mahahalagang elemento ng 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘺 ang pagkakaroon ng may bisa na naunang kasal. Kung ang unang kasal ay walang bisa na mula pa sa simula, nangangahulugang wala ang naturang elemento ng 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘺.

Sa kasong ito, sapat na patunay ang sertipikasyong inilabas ng Local Civil Registrar na walang 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 na naisyu kina Lapira at Sato. Dahil dito, napabulaanan ang pagpapalagay o 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 na wasto ang marriage certificate.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171178.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐲𝐨𝐧 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165698.

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