https://www.facebook.com/410283105492278/

Atty. Jun Panuga, Botolan (2026)

10/02/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-s*x 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-s*x 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-s*x 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/.

29/01/2026

By a unanimous vote of all those participating, the (SC) En Banc, denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the House of Representatives, which sought to reverse the Court’s July 25, 2025 Decision that declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional.

It affirmed that the fourth impeachment complaint transmitted to the Senate on February 5, 2025 was already barred by Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) of the Constitution. Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa took no part. Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh was on leave.

The SC clarified the following points:

First, the first three impeachment complaints filed in accordance with the first mode of initiating an impeachment, that is Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2), were not placed in the Order of Business within the required 10 session days.

"Session days" as used in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2) or for purposes of the first mode of initiating an impeachment complaint does not mean legislative session days. A session day for purposes of Article XI in the Constitution was given its plain and ordinary sense, which the Court interprets to mean a calendar day in which the House of Representatives holds a session.

Second, the SC reiterated Gutierrez v. House of Representatives. However, it further elaborated that an impeachment complaint filed in accordance with the first mode of impeachment, Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2), is deemed initiated for purposes of the one-year bar in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (5) when:

(a) a properly verified and endorsed impeachment complaint is referred to the Committee on Justice;

(b) a properly verified and endorsed impeachment complaint is not placed in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives within 10 session days, or referred to the Committee on Justice after it has been put in the Order of Business within three session days as required by Article XI, Section 3, subsection (2) of the Constitution; or

(c) no Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to the Senate before the House of Representatives adjourns sine die. This means that the initiation of an impeachment complaint must occur during the term of Congress.

Third, the SC affirmed the power of the House of Representatives to promulgate its own Rules on Impeachment. However, it clarified that Section 2 of the House Rules, as it is currently worded, requires the referral to the Committee on Justice even when filed through the second mode. The second mode is provided in Article XI, Section 3, subsection (4) of the Constitution, where the endorsement of at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives would be sufficient to transmit the Articles of Impeachment.

In view of the current wording of Section 2 of the Rules on Impeachment as drafted and promulgated by the House of Representatives in its 19th and 20th Congress, the House may—optionally upon its own prerogative—refer an impeachment complaint already endorsed by at least one-third of all its members to the Committee on Justice only for the following purposes:

(1) to ensure that the endorsement of the members of the House is verified;

(2) to confirm that the evidence supporting the grounds in the complaint exists, and that every member of the House has been given a copy of the complaint, as well as the evidence supporting it; and

(3) to respect the Committee’s prerogative to consolidate different formulations of the complaint, if any, so that only one complaint is endorsed to the plenary for transmittal to the Senate.

The SC observed that there is a fundamental difference between the first and second modes of initiating impeachment complaints. Thus, Article XI, Section 3, subsections (2) and (3) cover the first mode of initiating an impeachment complaint while Article XI, Section 3, subsection (4) covers the second mode of initiating an impeachment complaint.

In the first mode, as contemplated under subsections (2) and (3), impeachment is initiated through the regular and deliberative process in the House of Representatives. A verified complaint may be filed either by a member of the House or by a private citizen with the endorsement of a member. Upon filing, the complaint is referred to the House Committee on Justice, which evaluates its sufficiency in form and substance and conducts the appropriate hearings. Only after favorable committee action does the impeachment process proceed further. This mode therefore emphasizes institutional screening and committee review.

By contrast, subsection (4) introduces an alternative and more direct mechanism for initiating impeachment. Under this provision, a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment signed by at least one-third of all the members of the House of Representatives immediately initiates impeachment proceedings.

These provisions reflect a deliberate constitutional design; subsections (2) and (3) provide a structured and committee-directed approach, while subsection (4) allows a streamlined initiation when a sufficient level of consensus already exists.”

Fourth, the Court affirmed that due process of law applies to the impeachment process. It stated that:

“The phrase ‘right to life, liberty, or property’ should not be read with undue literalism. It must be accorded reasonable flexibility to achieve its intent of protecting inherent and inalienable rights that could not have been exhaustively articulated at the time of its framing. The due process clause embodies the fundamental constitutional commitment to reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. It envisions that we cannot have a true democratic and republican/representative state that is arbitrary and unfair.”

However, due process as it applies to the impeachment process is sui generis or a class of its own. Full-blown trial happens at the Senate. At least for the second mode of initiating an impeachment complaint, it only requires:

One. The grounds invoked in the complaint or resolution are those contained in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Two. The procedure is governed by the Rules on Impeachment promulgated by the House of Representatives prior to any filing of any impeachment complaint.

Three. As already provided by the current House Rules on Impeachment, all endorsing members should have been given a copy of the complaint and all its supporting evidence.

The Court also noted that the transmittal of the Articles of Impeachment should be done in a plenary session of the House of Representatives, providing all the members of the House of Representatives with full copies of the complaint and its accompanying evidence mentioned in Rule IV, Section 14 of the House Rules on Impeachment.

Transmittal to the Senate, however, requires only a vote of one-third of its members for the first mode of initiating a complaint, or proof of the endorsement of a complaint by one-third of its members for the second mode.

Fifth, the operative fact doctrine cannot be invoked by the party directly responsible in the commission of an unconstitutional act. Thus, it does not apply in this case.

Finally, the Court noted all the motions for intervention and pleadings filed by individuals who were not parties to the case.

The Resolution is immediately executory upon digital service on all parties.

No further pleadings will be allowed.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159965

Read the full text of the Resolution at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278353-278359-sara-z-duterte-vs-house-of-representatives-et-al-atty-israelito-p-torreon-et-al-vs-house-of-representatives-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278353-278359-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-ramon-paul-l-hernando-2/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278353-278359-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-henri-jean-paul-b-inting-2/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278353-278359-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-ricardo-r-rosario/

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278353-278359-separate-opinion-justice-amy-c-lazaro-javier/

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278353-278359-separate-opinion-justice-raul-b-villanueva/

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

28/01/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session today, January 28, 2026, denied the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, which questioned the removal of an annotation on respondent Antonio V. Mitra’s (Mitra) land title.

Mitra owns a parcel of land in Quezon City. After his transfer certificate of title (TCT) was presumed lost or destroyed, he applied for administrative reconstitution.

Following Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, the law that governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles, the reconstituted title contained an annotation stating that it was without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted on the original copy at the time it was lost or destroyed.

Twenty-seven years later, Mitra asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the annotation, pointing out that no one had claimed any interest in the property during that period. The RTC granted the request and ordered the removal of the annotation. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, ruling that the publication and posting requirement no longer applied because of the long lapse of time since the title was reconstituted.

Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, the SC explained that under R.A. No. 26, posting and publication are required only if the petition to cancel the mandatory annotation is filed within two years from the date of administrative reconstitution, and no petition to annotate an omitted interest has been filed during that period.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159902.

The full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 264862, Republic of the Philippines v. Antonio V. Mitra, shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.

27/01/2026

Isinantabi ng ang kasong adultery na inihain ng kinatawan ng isang lalaki laban sa kanyang asawa. Muling iginiit ng Korte na tanging ang mismong asawang nasaktan o naagrabyado ang may karapatang magsampa ng ganitong kaso.

Sa isang desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., binaliktad ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang pasya ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) na nag-utos na muling buksan ang kasong adultery laban kina Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba at kapwa-akusado na si Michael Llona.

Nagsampa, sa pamamagitan ng isang kinatawan, ng kasong adultery at grave threats si Jin Chiba laban sa asawa niyang si Aurel at kay Michael.

Hindi pinagbigyan ng Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ang kasong adultery sa dahilang tanging ang mismong asawang naagrabyado lamang ang maaaring magsampa nito.

Binaliktad ng RTC ang desisyon ng MeTC at pinagtibay na tumugon sa mga pamantayang legal ang pagsasampa ng kaso, dahil nakalakip naman sa reklamong inihain ng kinatawan ni Jin ang mismong complaint-affidavit ni Jin.

Hindi ito sinang-ayunan ng Korte Suprema at muling iginiit na ang adultery ay isang pribadong krimen na maaari lamang usigin kung may reklamong inihain mismo ng asawang inagrabyado. Binanggit ng Korte ang Rule 110, Section 5, ng Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure at ang Article 344 ng Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na umiiral ang kahingiang ito “bilang paggalang sa panig na inagrabyado, na maaaring mas piliing tiisin na lamang nang tahimik ang dinanas na paglabag kaysa humarap sa eskandalo ng isang pampublikong paglilitis.” Pinahihintulutan ng batas ang asawang inagrabyado na magpasya kung dadalhin ba ang usapin sa hukuman o aayusin ito nang pribado.

Sa kasong ito, ang reklamong adultery ay hindi sinimulan ng mismong asawang inagrabyado kundi ng kanyang kinatawan. Bagaman nagsumite si Jin ng sarili niyang complaint-affidavit, ito ay isinama lamang bilang kalakip o annex sa reklamong inihain ng kanyang kinatawan.

Dahil hindi natugunan ang mga kahingian sa ilalim ng Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure at ng Revised Penal Code, itinuring ng Korte Suprema na walang wastong reklamo naisampa at tuluyan nitong ibinasura ang kaso.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159759

Basahin ang kabuuang teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159743

Basahin ang Concurring Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159748

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

26/01/2026

Ang labis na pagdidisiplina sa isang bata ay maituturing na child abuse kapag mayroong malinaw na layuning sirain ang dignidad ng isang bata.

Hinatulang guilty ng Korte Suprema ang isang ama ng child abuse o paglabag ng RA No. 7610 o ang Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act matapos isailalim sa marahas at labis na disiplina ang kanyang 12-anyos na anak na babae at 10-anyos na anak na lalaki.

Mula 2017 hanggang 2018, binugbog ng ama ang kanyang mga anak — sinipa, hinila ang buhok, hinampas ng kahoy na pamalo at dustpan, at pinagmumura.

Sa ilalim ng Section 3(b) ng RA No. 7610, ang anumang pagkilos na nagpapababa sa dignidad ng isang bata ay itinuturing na child abuse.

Ayon sa Korte, malinaw na lumabag sa makatwirang pagdisiplina ang ginawa ng ama, na nagpapakita ng isang malinaw na layunin na sirain ang dignidad ng mga bata.

Bagama't may karapatan ang mga magulang na disiplinahin ang kanilang mga anak, paalala ng Korte, ang mga naturang hakbang ay hindi dapat maging marahas, sobra-sobra, o higit pa sa maling nagawa.

Ang Desisyon ay mula sa Second Division ng Korte Suprema na isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.

Basahin ang buong press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-excessive-discipline-that-harms-a-childs-dignity-is-child-abuse/

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268457-###-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

18/12/2025

Nagpasya ang na bagama’t nananatiling pribado ang mga detalyeng pinansiyal ng mga deposito sa bangko, pinahihintulutan ng Cybercrime Prevention Act ang pagbubunyag ng impormasyon ng mga may-ari ng bank account para sa mga imbestigasyon kaugnay ng mga kasong cybercrime.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, tinanggihan ng Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyong inihain ng EastWest Rural Bank (EastWest) na kumukwestiyon sa warrant to disclose computer data (WDCD) na inisyu ng hukuman at sa kasunod na Disclosure Order na inilabas ng Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG) na nag-aatas sa kanila na ibunyag ang impormasyon ng may-ari ng isang EastWest bank account.

Nais ng mga otoridad na makuha ang impormasyon tungkol sa may-ari ng EastWest bank account kung saan inilipat ang pera ni Leonard Vendiola matapos siyang maloko ng isang tumawag na nagpapanggap na empleyado ng bangko.

Iniulat ni Vendiola sa PNP-ACG na naloko siya ng tumawag na nagpakilalang empleyado ng bangko na nangako ng gantimpala kapalit ng pagbibigay ng kanyang email at one-time password. Nang suriin niya ang kanyang bank account, nalaman niyang na-transfer ang halagang PHP 10,000 sa isang EastWest account.

Nag-apply ang PNP-ACG para sa isang WDCD para matukoy ang may-ari ng EastWest account na sangkot sa umano’y scam. Pinahintulutan ito ng Regional Trial Court, na nagbigay pahintulot sa PNP-ACG na pilitin ang EastWest na ibunyag at panatilihin ang datos na may kaugnayan sa may-ari ng account. Alinsunod dito, nag-isyu ang PNP-ACG ng Disclosure Order sa EastWest.

Hinamon ng EastWest ang warrant at nangatwiran na mahigpit na nagbabawal sa mga bangko ang Bank Secrecy Law na magbunyag ng anumang impormasyon tungkol sa mga deposito dito kabilang ang pagkakakilanlan ng may hawak ng account. Nanindigan ito na nananatiling may bisa ang panuntunang ito dahil hindi ito pinawalang-bisa ng Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Iginiit din ng EastWest na hindi ito dapat sumailalim sa mga panuntunan sa pagsisiwalat ng Cybercrime law dahil isa itong institusyong pinansiyal sa halip na isang communications service provider.

Tinanggihan ng Korte Suprema ang mga argumentong ito at kinatigan ang bisa ng Warrant to Disclose Computer Data at Disclosure Order.

Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na bagama’t pinoprotektahan ng Bank Secrecy Law ang pagiging kumpedinsyal ng mga bank deposit at ng kanilang mga detalyeng pinansiyal, hindi nito ipinagbabawal ang pagbubunyag ng mga pangunahing impormasyong pagkakakilanlan kapag pinahihintulutan ng batas. Sa ilalim ng Cybercrime Prevention Act, maaaring hilingin ng mga ahensiyang nagpapatupad ng batas, sa bisa ng isang warrant na inisyu ng hukuman, ang pagbubunyag ng mga computer data na kinakailangan para imbestigahan ang mga krimeng may kinalaman sa cybercrime.

Nagpasya rin ang Korte Suprema na itinuturing ang EastWest na isang service provider sa ilalim ng Cybercrime Prevention Act dahil ang mga digital banking service nito—tulad ng mga online banking platform, mobile application, at mga awtomatikong abiso sa pamamagitan ng email—ay nagpapahintulot sa mga kliyente na makipag-ugnayan at magsagawa ng mga transaksyon sa pamamagitan ng mga computer system. Bilang isang institusyong pampinansiyal, nagpoproseso at nag-iimbak din ng malaking halaga ng computer data kapwa sa takbo ng sarili nitong operasyon at sa ngalan ng mga kliyente nito ang EastWest, kaya’t saklaw ito ng batas hinggil sa pagbubunyag ng computer data kapag pinahintulutan ng warrant na inisyu ng hukuman.

Basahin ang press release sa http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157653

Basahin ang Desisyon sa http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157646

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

18/12/2025

Nilinaw ng na “r**e” at hindi “simple r**e” ang tamang terminolohiya o tawag sa krimen sa ilalim ng Article 266-A(1)(a) ng Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinagtibay ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na pagkakasala ng isang lalaki sa panggagahasa sa isang 13-taong-gulang na babae at hinatulan siya ng hanggang 40 taong pagkakabilanggo.

Napatunayang nagkasala sa kasong simple r**e ang akusado ng Regional Trial Court at ng Court of Appeals.

Sa ilalim ng Article 266-A(1)(a) ng RPC, nagkakaroon ng r**e kapag ang isang lalaki ay nakipagtalik sa isang babae sa pamamagitan ng puwersa, banta, o pananakot.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na pagkakasala at sinamantala rin ang pagkakataon para linawin na dapat tawaging r**e at hindi simple r**e ang krimen.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na walang “simple” sa R**e at ang pagtukoy dito sa ganitong paraan ay nagpapababa sa bigat ng krimen at nagpapamanhid sa publiko sa pinsalang idinudulot nito.

Bagama’t dati nang ikinategorya ang r**e bilang krimen laban sa puri sa ilalim ng Article 335 ng RPC, ikinlasipika ito ng Republic Act No. 8353, o ang Anti-R**e Law of 1997, bilang krimen laban sa tao.

Ang mga krimen laban sa puri, tulad ng adultery at seduction, ay karaniwang mga pribadong krimen na nakatuon sa pagprotekta sa dangal ng biktima.

Samantala, naglalayong pangalagaan ang pisikal na integridad at kapakanan ng mga indibidwal ang mga krimen laban sa tao, tulad ng homicide, murder, at physical injuries.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

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

27/06/2025

Nagpasya ang na ang isang kasunduan sa pagbebenta ng lupa ay may bisa kahit hindi nakasulat kung ito ay bahagya o ganap nang naipatupad.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, kinatigan ng Third Division ng Korte ang berbal na pagbebenta ng lupa sa pagitan nina Marcos Batara (Batara) at ng kanyang pamangkin na si Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Bagamat walang nakasulat na kontrata, sinabi ng Korte na may bisa ang pagbebenta dahil natanggap na ni Ocampo ang titulo ng lupa, nakalipat na siya sa ari-arian, at nagtanim ng mga pananim dito.

Nakarehistro ang lupa sa pangalan ni Batara na namatay noong 1974. Nalaman lang ng kanyang mga anak na sina Noblesa at Ernesto ang tungkol sa ari-arian noong 2007. Nakatanggap sila ng notice na magbayad ng hindi pa nababayarang buwis sa real estate at nalaman din na doon nakatira ang kanilang pinsan na si Ocampo.

Sina Noblesa at Ernesto ay nagsampa ng kaso para bawiin ang lupain mula kay Ocampo at sinabing sila ang mga nararapat na tagapagmana.

Sinabi ni Ocampo na binili niya ang lupa kay Batara noong buhay pa siya. Nang namatay si Batara, patuloy na nagbabayad si Ocampo ng hulugan kay Marcelo, kapatid ni Batara at tagapag-alaga ni Noblesa.

Inamin ni Ocampo na ang pagbebenta ay hindi napatunayan ng anumang nakasulat na dokumento dahil namatay si Batara bago pa nila maisagawa ang mga kinakailangan. Pero iprinisenta ni Ocampo ang kopya ng titulo ng lupa ng may-ari bilang patunay na sinasabing ibinigay ito ni Batara sa kanya pagkatapos ng unang pagbabayad noong 1972.

Nagdesisyon pabor kina Noblesa at Ernesto ang Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Court of Appeals (CA) na nagsabing mas may karapatan sila sa ari-arian dahil nakarehistro ito sa pangalan ng kanilang ama. Dagdag pa rito, walang sapat na patunay ng pagbebenta maliban sa mga pahayag ni Ocampo.

Binaliktad ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon ng RTC at CA.

Sa ilalim ng Civil Code, ang pagbebenta ng lupa ay dapat na nakasulat para maipatupad ito sa korte. Ang nakasulat na dokumentong ito ay nagsisilbing patunay na ang magkabilang partido ay sumang-ayon sa pagbebenta. Pero ang pagbebenta ay itinuturing na may bisa pa rin kahit na walang nakasulat na kontrata kung ito ay ganap na o bahagyang naisakatuparan na. Sa ganitong mga kaso, ang isang berbal na kasunduan ay maaari pa ring magkaroon ng legal na bisa, at ang mga saksi ay maaaring payagang tumestigo upang patunayan na nangyari ang bentahan.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, ang pag-aari ng lupa at pagpapagawa ng mga pagbabago ay matibay na senyales na nagkaroon na ng verbal sale. Kaya ang mga mamimili na nakatira na sa ari-arian ay maaaring gamitin ang kasunduang berbal bilang legal na batayan sa kanilang pagmamay-ari kahit na walang nakasulat na kontrata.

Sa kasong ito, ang pagbebenta ay bahagyang naipatupad dahil bahagyang binayaran ni Ocampo ang lupa, lumipat siya rito, natanggap niya rin ang titulo ng lupa, at nagbayad din ng amilyar. May patunay na may bentahan base sa mga testimonya ni Ocampo at ng kanyang mga testigo.

Pero sinabi ng Korte na hindi si Marcelo ang awtorisadong tumanggap ng bayad sa ngalan ng mga tagapagmana ng kanyang kapatid. Kaya kahit nananatiling wasto at may bisa ang pagbebenta, kailangang bayaran ni Ocampo ang natitirang balanse ng presyo ng pagbili na may kasamang interes kina Noblesa at Ernesto.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/yeapyzcd.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

02/08/2024

𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝐧𝐚𝐤𝐮𝐤𝐮𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐚 𝐬𝐚 𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐠?

𝐴𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐼𝐼𝐼, 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 20 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 1987 𝑃ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 "𝑁𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑜𝑟 𝑛𝑜𝑛-𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑙 𝑡𝑎𝑥."

It provides protection to individual from imprisonment due to his inability to pay or fulfill his financial obligations.

Exceptions:

1. Issuing bouncing checks
2. Fraud or deceit as contemplated in the RPC
3. Fraudulent acts in incurring debt or obligation
4. Other fraudulent acts penalized under special laws. (Credit card debt)

In short, pag utang lang walang kulong. Pag may kasamang panloloko may kulong.

Sana makatulong bago umutang. 😊

24/07/2024

𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒚

a condition involving mass casualty and/or major damages to property, disruption of means of livelihoods, roads and normal way of life of people in the affected areas as a result of the occurrence of natural or human-induced hazards. ( RA 10121)

𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑬𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚

In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. (Article VI, Section 23 [2], 1987 Constitution)

Viewpoint:

Both differs from the other. Emergency power has vast coverage as it not only deals natural disaster but other wide range of situations.

24/07/2024

𝗛𝗼𝘁 𝗧𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰

𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘦𝘹 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵/𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦?

the Supreme Court ruled that a person’s first name and s*x cannot be changed on the ground of s*x reassignment or s*x alteration or s*x change because there is no law allowing such.

Birth determines gender.

𝐺.𝑅. 𝑁𝑜. 174689, 22 𝑂𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑏𝑒𝑟 2007.

Atty. Jun Panuga

10/02/2026

29/01/2026

28/01/2026

27/01/2026

26/01/2026

18/12/2025

18/12/2025

27/06/2025

02/08/2024

24/07/2024

24/07/2024

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category