PAYOD Law Office

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

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

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

06/06/2025

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/.

20/05/2025

‼️

15/05/2025

Iginiit ng na kapag ang isang akusado ay inapela ang hatol sa kasong kriminal, ang buong kaso ay muling bubuksan na nagpapahintulot sa korte na suriin ang lahat ng aspeto nito at magpataw ng mas mabigat na parusa.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., tinanggihan ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ang apela na inihain ni ###. Hinatulan siyang guilty ng Korte sa panggagahasa at tangkang panggagahasa sa halip na unjust vexation at siya ay pinatawan ng mas mabigat na parusa.

Taong 2013 nang unang abusuhin ng kanyang ama na si ### ang noo’y 16 taong gulang na babae. Hindi siya nakapalag. Pero sa ikalawang pagkakataon, nakapanlaban sya nang magtangkang pumatong ang ama sa kanya.

Guilty sa panggagahasa ang hatol ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Court of Appeals (CA) kay ### para sa unang insidente ngunit hinatulan lamang siya ng unjust vexation para sa pangalawang insidente.

Kinatigan ng Korte ang hatol kay ### para sa unang insidente dahil naroroon ang lahat ng elemento ng panggagahasa. Ang panggagahasa sa ilalim ng Article 266-A(1)(A) ng Revised Penal Code ay ginagawa kapag ang isang lalaki ay nakipagtalik sa isang babae sa pamamagitan ng puwersa, pagbabanta, o pananakot.

Pero sa pangalawang insidente, hindi sumang-ayon ang Korte sa RTC at CA at sinabing napatunayang nagkasala si ### sa tangkang panggagahasa na may mas mabigat na parusa kaysa sa unjust vexation. Ang ginawa ni ### na nakalabas ang ari at sinubukang patungan ang biktima ay nagpapahiwatig na sinadya niyang halayin ito.

Sa pagpataw ng mas mabigat na parusa sa akusado, inabandona ng desisyong ito ang naunang doktrina sa People v. Balunsat na nagbabawal sa isang nagsusuri na hukuman na taasan o dagdagan ang parusa sa apela upang protektahan ang akusado mula sa double jeopardy.

Sa 2010 na kaso ng People v. Balunsat, sinabi ng Korte na hindi na nito marerepaso ang desisyon ng CA na i-downgrade ang conviction mula sa tangkang panggagahasa patungo sa acts of lasciviousness dahil ito ay katumbas sa pagpapawalang-sala sa mas seryosong kaso. Binigyang-diin nito na ang pagpapawalang-sala ay kaagad na pinal at hindi maaaring iapela.

Sa kasalukuyang kaso, sinabi ng Korte na ang Balunsat ay hindi tama sa paggamit ng karapatan ng akusado laban sa double jeopardy. Kapag ang akusado ay nag-apela ng isang hatol, isinusuko niya ang karapatang ito at binubuksan ang buong kaso para sa pagsusuri, kabilang ang posibilidad ng pagpataw ng mas mabigat na parusa.

Si ### ay pinatawan ng maximum na 40 taon na pagkakakulong para sa panggagahasa at hanggang 12 taon naman para sa tangkang panggagahasa. Inutusan din siyang magbayad ng PHP 300,000 bilang danyos.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://tinyurl.com/4nkwwe5c.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/3pmbffmt.

28/03/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that clients should not be unfairly penalized for their lawyer’s mistakes if it would frustrate rather than promote justice.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division granted the petition filed by a group of laborers challenging the denial by the Court of Appeals (CA) of their motion for extension of time in connection with their case for illegal dismissal.

The laborers had filed a case for illegal dismissal against their employer. After both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commissions dismissed their complaint, they brought their case to the CA, where they had 60 days to file a petition for 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪.

However, their lawyer failed to prepare the petition despite prior arrangements and payment. Left without legal representation, the laborers requested from the CA a 30-day extension, or until January 10, 2023, to find a new lawyer and file their case.

The CA rejected their request and dismissed their petition for 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪, which they filed through new legal counsel on January 10, 2023.

Ruling in favor of the laborers, the SC clarified that while the 60-day deadline for filing a petition for 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪 is generally required, courts may grant extensions for valid reasons.

Although clients are generally bound by their lawyer’s actions, there are exceptions, particularly when a lawyer’s negligence violates due process or leads to the loss of a client’s liberty or property.

In the case of the laborers, who were minimum-wage workers with limited access to legal resources, the SC recognized that they could not be expected to immediately find new legal representation. As a result, it reinstated the case and directed the CA to resolve it based on its merits.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/5hd5n6a6.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/bdexjjk8.

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

15/02/2025

The has ruled that only the injured spouse – not the one who knowingly entered a bigamous marriage – can ask the court to nullify it.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Supreme Court En Banc denied a Filipina’s petition to declare her second marriage void for being bigamous.

The petitioner first married a Chinese national in Hong Kong and the Philippines. While working in Hong Kong, she had an affair with a Filipino whom she later married when she returned to the Philippines.

Her first husband later obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which a Parañaque court recognized, effectively dissolving their marriage.

After 14 years, she separated from her second husband and sought to nullify their marriage, arguing that it was void for being bigamous. She also requested permission to remarry.

Denying her petition, the Supreme Court stated that only the aggrieved or innocent spouse from either marriage has the right to petition for the annulment of a second marriage. In this case, it was the petitioner’s first husband who held that right, but he lost it after obtaining a divorce. This right did not transfer to the petitioner, who is considered the guilty spouse.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-guilty-spouse-cannot-seek-nullity-of-bigamous-marriage/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/g-r-259520/.

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

29/01/2025

May this year bring us abundant happiness, good health, and success in all our endeavors! 🐲🥂

We are open today. ⚖️

26/01/2025

22/01/2025

Hindi kailangan ang psychological evaluation para patunayan ang psychological violence sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. 9262 o ang 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵.

Ito ang iginiit ng sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting kung saan pinagtibay ng Third Division ng Korte ang hatol sa akusado para sa psychological violence laban sa kanyang asawa at mga anak.

Pinatawan ng Korte ang akusado ng hanggang walong taong pagkakakulong at pinagbabayad ng PHP 275,000 na multa at danyos. Inatasan din siya na sumailalim sa mandatory psychological counseling o psychiatric treatment.

Ikinasal ang akusado at ang kanyang asawa noong 1998 at nagkaroon sila ng tatlong anak. Nagkaroon din siya ng anak sa ibang babae na itinira niya sa bahay mismo ng kanyang ina, na katabi lang ng kanilang bahay. Hindi rin sya nagbigay ng pinansyal na tulong.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na kumpleto ang lahat ng elemento ng krimen ng psychological violence sa ilalim ng Section 5(i) ng 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊 𝘈𝘤𝘵: (1) ang biktima ay isang babae at/o kanyang anak; (2) ang biktima ay asawa ng o may relasyon sa nagkasala; (3) ang nagkasala ay nagdudulot sa biktima ng mental o emosyonal na paghihirap; at (4) ang paghihirap ay dulot ng pampublikong pangungutya o kahihiyan, pasalita at emosyonal na pang-aabuso, pagtanggi ng suportang pinansyal, o mga katulad na gawain.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte na hindi kailangan ng psychological evaluation mula sa isang ekspertong testigo para patunayan na nagdusa ang biktima. Hindi ito kinakailangan sa ilalim ng batas. Nagpasya ang Korte na ang testimonya ng isang biktima sa husgado ay sapat na para patunayan ang emosyonal na paghihirap o pagdurusa sa isip.

Sa kasong ito, detalyadong pinatotohanan ng asawa ang kanyang karanasan na nagpapatunay sa kanyang mental at emosyonal na paghihirap.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-psychological-evaluation-not-required-to-prove-psychological-violence-under-anti-vawc-act/

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/270257-###270257-vs-people-of-the-philippines-and-aaa

22/01/2025