OJ UY LAW

04/06/2026

21/05/2026

09/05/2026

Office Hours 🕣

08/05/2026

✨ Salute to Our Managing Broker Dotie Dayak-Uy✨

You don’t just sell properties—you serve with heart, vision, and dedication. Every client feels the difference because you lead with integrity and passion. Your commitment inspires us all to go beyond transactions and truly make an impact.

👏 Thank you for showing us that real estate is not only about homes, but about people, trust, and service.

08/05/2026

21/03/2026

The En Banc has approved the Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary, marking a significant step toward modernizing court operations and improving the administration of justice through new technologies.

In a Resolution dated February 18, 2026, in A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, the SC issued a comprehensive guide on the responsible use of human-centered augmented intelligence in the judicial system, based on three ethical principles: fairness, accountability, and transparency. These principles support “the ethical and responsible use of human-centered augmented intelligence tools in the Judiciary” and “reinforce the public’s faith and confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judicial system.”

The Framework was developed by a working group chaired by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Rodil V. Zalameda as vice chairpersons. It was created with the help of other members of the Judiciary, subject matter experts, lawyers, and the academe, and further refined through consultations with the SC En Banc, the SC’s Management Information Systems Office, and the Office of the Chief Attorney. It also draws from global best practices, including the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices Governance Framework on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the ASEAN Judiciaries and UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals, ensuring alignment with international standards.

A key feature of the Framework is the use of the term “human-centered augmented intelligence,” which emphasizes that technology must remain centered on humans and should only support, not replace, human reason and judgment.

Read the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162306.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25-11-28-sc-re-proposed-governance-framework-on-the-use-of-human-centered-augmented-intelligence-in-the-judiciary-2/

17/03/2026

PRESS RELEASE | DOJ hails SC ruling on stricter evidence standards in preliminary investigations

The Department of Justice (DOJ) welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) affirming the validity of Department Circular No. 015, series of 2024, which elevated the standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings from mere probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

The rule change was introduced to address longstanding challenges in the justice system, including the filing of weak cases that overburden courts, prolong trials, and erode public trust.

By requiring a higher threshold, prima facie evidence demonstrating not just probable cause but a reasonable certainty of conviction, the DOJ ensures only meritorious cases proceed to trial and criminal cases, improving the overall quality of cases brought before the courts, as well as a higher conviction rate for the prosecution.

Justice Secretary Fredderick A. Vida hailed the SC ruling, describing it as an affirmation of the DOJ’s commitment to reform and advance the country’s criminal justice system.

"The Supreme Court's affirmation validates our bold step toward a more discerning and effective prosecution system. This is not about making justice harder to achieve. It’s about making it fairer, faster, and more reliable for all Filipinos,” Justice Secretary Vida stated.

This shift promotes efficiency, reduces judicial backlog, protects the rights of the accused, and upholds the presumption of innocence.

The Department will continue implementing these guidelines nationwide, providing training to prosecutors and collaborating with stakeholders to refine processes further.

27/06/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CKCCEFk8D/

The (SC) has reiterated that a co-owner must give written notice to the other co-owners before selling their share of a property. However, if the other co-owners already knew about the sale and failed to exercise their right to buy the share within 30 days, the written notice is no longer required.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by siblings Antonio Azurin, Jr. (Antonio) and Rafael Azurin (Rafael) to buy back a parcel of land registered in the name of Carlito Chua (Chua).

Antonio and Rafael were in possession of a parcel of land which they co-owned with their aunt Adelaida. Adelaida later sold to Chua her portion, which was officially registered in Chua’s name after it was surveyed and divided.

Years later, Antonio and Rafael attempted to buy back the land from Chua by filing a complaint for legal redemption before the trial court. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the complaint, on the ground that the case was filed years after the sale and well beyond the 30-day period allowed by the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Antonio and Rafael appealed to the SC, but the SC denied their appeal.

The SC said that under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a co-owner intending to sell their share to a third party must notify the other co-owners in writing about the sale. The other co-owners then have 30 days from receipt of the written notice to redeem or buy back the portion sold. If they fail to do so within the period, they lose the right to redeem the sold portion.

The SC, however, added that the requirement of written notice can be waived if (1) unusual circumstances have made the co-owners aware of the sale, and (2) the co-owners did not take action or were negligent in their right to redeem the property, a situation referred to in law as laches.

In this case, the SC found that Antonio and Rafael were aware of the sale. They were in actual possession of the land and, therefore, were informed about the survey conducted on it. Additionally, they received Chua’s legal complaint to recover possession.

However, they waited more than six years before trying to redeem the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/68yxczhw.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/35tpwuye.

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/.

15/06/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that bladed weapons such as knives should not be penalized in the election gun ban as provided under Section 32 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7166, in relation to Commission on Elections Resolution 9561-A.

In a 21-page ruling written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC’s Second Division overturned the conviction of Mark Paul Ildefonso for violation of the Omnibus Election Code for carrying a knife outside of his residence during the election period without proper authorization and Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.

Ildefonso was arrested in a buy-bust operation where two sachets containing shabu and a 10-inch knife were recovered from his possession. The said operation was conducted on October 14, 2013, or within the election period as prescribed and implemented by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

The complaint was filed against him for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A, in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 9735 and the Omnibus Election Code for possession of a knife, and Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 for selling and possessing shabu.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Ildefonso for all three crimes charged against him. This paved the way for him to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting the accused for selling and possessing illegal drugs, the high court ruled that the arresting officers failed to follow the chain of custody rule, as none of the insulating witnesses were immediately available to witness the drug operations.

It also found out that the inventory, marking, and photograph of the seized items were not conducted immediately at the place of confiscation, which is fatal to the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug item.

“The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug,” the Supreme Court said.

The SC also denounced the act of the apprehending officer in placing the seized sachet inside his pocket prior to handing it over for marking and inventory, which cast doubt on the identity of the item that was later marked and inventoried.

“This Court cannot simply disregard and ignore the possibility that the items allegedly seized may have been tampered with, altered, or substituted before marking and inventory were conducted,” the Supreme Court added.

As for violation of the gun ban under the Omnibus Election Code, the high court also acquitted the accused, emphasizing that the definition of "deadly weapon" is vague and unclear under the COMELEC resolution prevailing at the time of arrest.

"The [COMELEC]'s definition of 'deadly weapon' is vague and unclear, not only on what may be considered deadly, but also on what may be considered a weapon." As observed by the Court, no law defines what a "deadly weapon" is. Meanwhile, the COMELEC-provided definition is unnecessarily broad, as it includes all types of bladed instruments that are not necessary to the occupation of the possessor or are not used as tools for a legitimate activity,” the Supreme Court said.

The high court also ruled that the poll body exceeded the scope of its legislative authority when it included bladed instruments in the term ''deadly weapons, as it was not the intention of the legislature to make possession and carriage of bladed instruments during the election period punishable.

“The prohibition on the unauthorized possession and carriage of fi****ms and deadly weapons during an election period under Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 132 of Republic Act No. 7166 pertains only to fi****ms and deadly weapons that are regulated. Since bladed instruments such as knives are not regulated, possession and carriage of such items should not be made punishable under Section 2(c) in relation to Section l(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A,” the Supreme Court added.

The Supreme Court urged the COMELEC to provide a clearer and more concise definition of 'deadly weapon' in their future resolutions and must be more discerning and detailed in providing such a definition.