Adap Ceniza Gaid & Paderes Law Office

21/08/2026

SUPREME COURT: BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY MAY CONSTITUTE PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE UNDER VAWC

FIRST ON BATAS PH: The Supreme Court (SC) has sentenced a man to suffer up to 9 years imprisonment for committing psychological violence under R.A. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act against his pregnant girlfriend after he breached his promise to marry her, which caused serious emotional and psychological suffering.

In a 10-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC's First Division affirmed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) penalizing the man after finding that his "willful" withdrawal of the marriage license, knowing that his girlfriend was pregnant and had already announced the union-constitutes a form of emotional manipulation and public humiliation that fits the definition of psychological violence.

21/08/2026

A court stenographer in Paniqui, Tarlac has been dismissed for grave misconduct after she allegedly duped a complainant into paying P250,000 in exchange for a fake annulment ruling, the Supreme Court (SC) reported on Thursday.

Aside from dismissal, the SC forfeited the retirement benefits of Rosalie Sarsagat, stenographer III of the Paniqui Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 67, and disqualified her from seeking reemployment in government. http://tiny.cc/tt09101

10/08/2026

The announces the start of the application for commission as 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 today, 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟏𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔.

For more information, you may refer to the Electronic Notary Services (ENS) microsite at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/enotarization/.

For concerns and questions, you may submit them through the ENS Helpdesk Form at https://tinyurl.com/ENSHelpdeskForm

You may access the Rules on Electronic Notarization at https://tinyurl.com/RulesOnElectronicNotarization

27/07/2026

27/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

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

20/07/2026

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥, 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞, 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬.

YES. Article 26 of the Family Code states:
"𝐴𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 26. 𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠, 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ, 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦, 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜ℎ𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝐴𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 35 (1), (4), (5) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 (6), 36, 37 𝑎𝑛𝑑 38."

Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. 𝗜𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗼 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.

Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter's national law.

𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃: 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐨 𝐯. 𝐑𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎𝟖
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/218008.pdf

20/07/2026

SUPREME COURT: CONTINUOUS COHABITATION REQUIRED FOR COMMON LAW PARTNERS TO QUALIFY FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE EXEMPTION

The Supreme Court (SC) has declared a marriage void from the beginning for lack of a valid marriage license, ruling that an Affidavit of Cohabitation containing false or fabricated statements has no legal force or effect and is considered a mere scrap of paper without legal effect.

In a 15-page decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division has declared void ab initio the marriage between Boots Rodel Aguirre and Alma Aguirre due to absence of marriage license by executing a fraudulent Affidavit of Cohabitation

Boots and Alma were married on May 8, 2009, without securing a marriage license. Instead, they bypassed the license requirement by executing an Affidavit of Cohabitation under Article 34 of the Family Code, falsely swearing that they had continuously lived together as husband and wife for at least five years since December 2003.

However, Boots actually lived and worked in Israel from May 2006 to May 2009, returning only days before the wedding. In 2013, Boots filed a petition to declare their marriage void ab initio (from the beginning), admitting that the affidavit was fabricated to bypass the law.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both declared the marriage null and void. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Boots’ stay in Israel was merely a "temporary absence" that did not disrupt their cohabitation.

The high court affirmed the ruling of the CA and RTC as it held that the exceptions to the marriage license requirement must be strictly construed. It noted if the essential statements in an Affidavit of Cohabitation are false, the affidavit is considered a mere scrap of paper without legal effect.

The Court explained that lawmakers exempted qualified common-law couples from the marriage license requirement to protect them from the humiliation, shame, and embarrassment that could arise from the public posting of marriage license applicants' names, as stipulated under Article 34 of the Family Code.

But it underscored that the exemption applies only to couples who have lived together continuously as husband and wife for the period required by law. It clarified that intermittent cohabitation where the parties frequently separated, maintained separate residences, and did not publicly present themselves as husband and wife, does not qualify as a common-law union for purposes of the exemption.

The SC emphasized that while brief separations due to work or business do not necessarily interrupt an already established common-law relationship, the evidence showed that Boots and Alma never established an exclusive and regular common-law household before Boots left. As such, they failed to satisfy the legal requirements for exemption from obtaining a marriage license.

It added that because the essential matter in their sworn affidavit was a lie, the document was reduced to a "mere scrap of paper" with no legal force. Without a valid license or a truthful affidavit to exempt them, the marriage was legally non-existent from the start.

20/07/2026

SC Orders Administrative Proceedings Against Retired BSP Examiner; Retirement Did Not Bar Liability

The Supreme Court, through the First Division in a Decision penned by Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, ruled that a public officer's retirement does not necessarily bar the institution of administrative proceedings when the retirement was intended to preempt the filing of administrative charges.

READ:
[https://dlsurf.com/atty.1006/sc-orders-administrative-proceedings-against-retired-bsp-examiner-retirement-did-not-bar-liability]

A short ad may appear before the article. Please watch it to support Atty. PhilJuris and help us keep our legal content free. Thank you!

30/06/2026

17/06/2026

"LOVE MAKES A FAMILY"

The National Authority for Child Care of the DSWD encouraged eligible members of the LGBTQ+ community to legally adopt, emphasizing that children should have "access to homes where they are safe, supported, and able to grow with stability."

"We want to tell everyone that there is no discrimination. If you are gay, it is not a hindrance to being a parent, legally a parent to an adopted child," said newly named NACC Executive Director Atty. Gaby Concepcion in a press conference during the opening of the agency's annual campaign on legal adoption, alternative child care, and child protection programs.

Click the article link in the comments to read more details.