Jumalon and Jumalon Law Office

10/02/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex 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-sex 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-sex 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/.

08/01/2026

Congratulations Atty. Domenique Cagaanan!

08/01/2026

Congratulations Atty. Jha TG!

23/12/2025

We will be closed on December 24 and 25. Merry Christmas to all!

21/12/2025

24/10/2025

Paalala mula sa IBP: Protektahan ang sarili laban sa pekeng abogado.

Verify before you trust.

13/10/2025

SUPREME COURT: MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED BY UNAUTHORIZED OFFICER REMAINS VALID IF ONE SPOUSE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH

| The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the validity of a marriage of a couple even though the one who solemnized the ceremony was an unauthorized officer, saying they acted in good faith and believed the officer had the legal authority.

In a 10-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez (retired), the SC's Second Division upheld the validity of the marriage contracted by Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and Amancio Melad as it junked the petition filed by the former to declare their marriage void on the ground that the officiant was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

In March 1993, Eloisa and Amancio got married at the Tarlac City Hall. Their marriage contract showed that the marriage was solemnized by Judge Condrado De Gracia. They were blessed with three children.

Throughout their union, Eloisa and Amancio encountered various marital problems. In 2017, Eloisa consulted a lawyer regarding the possibility of filing a legal separation case against her husband. Eloisa showed their marriage contract to her lawyer, who said he knew Judge De Gracia, the solemnizing officer of Eloisa and Amancio's marriage.

Eloisa also presented pictures of the marriage ceremony to her lawyer, who noticed that Judge De Gracia was not in the picture. The lawyer found out that it seemed Judge De Gracia was not the solemnizing officer, but Rosalio Florendo, whom he knew as a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This prompted Eloisa to file a petition to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition, citing insufficient evidence to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling, emphasizing that the marriage contract, being a public document, serves as prima facie, or initial, proof of the marriage and its details. Aggrieved, Eloisa elevated the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the lower court's ruling, the SC clarified that while a marriage officiated by someone without legal authority is generally void, it has an exemption: if one or both spouses genuinely believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

The high court cited Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code, which provide that one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage is the authority of the solemnizing officer. It likewise mentioned Article 35(2), which states that a marriage is void if the officiant lacks authority—unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized.

The SC explained that Eloisa failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority, as it found that the marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

It stressed that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The highest bench stressed out that Eloisa and Amancio's marriage falls under the exception in Article 35(2) of the Family Code and remains valid.

Meanwhile, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented from the decision, saying even if the solemnizing officer’s lack of authority falls under the exception, the absence of a personal declaration by the spouses during the ceremony—where they publicly take each other as husband and wife—renders the marriage void.

Leonen added that irregularities in the ceremony and the officiant’s authority raise reasonable doubt about the marriage’s validity.

11/09/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a public institution must vacate the land it occupies if it lacks permission from the rightful owner and the owner has a better right of possession.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division ordered the Department of Education (DepEd) to vacate and return a parcel of land to its owner, Princess Joama Marcosa A. Caleda (Caleda).

In 2014, Caleda bought a 10,637 square meter rice land in Cagayan through an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights and Sale signed by the heirs of the registered owner, Bueno Gallebo (Gallebo).

However, when Caleda later visited the land for a relocation survey, she discovered that it was being occupied by the Solana Fresh Water Fishery School (the School), a public institution under DepEd Regional Office 2.

Caleda sent several demand letters for DepEd to vacate the land, but received no reply. She then filed a case to recover possession of the land and remove any structures built on it.

DepEd argued that government agencies cannot be evicted from land already used for public purposes. It claimed it had the right to take over the property through its power of eminent domain, and that Caleda’s only remedy was to ask for just compensation.

Ruling in favor of Caleda, the SC found that the latter had clearly proven her better right to the property. Her land title was valid and accurately described the land, unlike the School’s deed of sale, which referred to an adjacent lot.

The SC emphasized that while the government can take private property for public use through its power of eminent domain, this must be done through proper legal proceedings and with payment of just compensation. Because no expropriation process was initiated in this case, the School could not retain the land simply by offering to pay for it.

The SC also clarified that a public institution can only prevent eviction if the property owner fails to assert their rights in time, which is considered an implied acceptance.

In this case, Caleda acted quickly—sending demand letters, talking to DepEd, registering her claims, and filing a case within two years of discovering the School’s occupation of the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/y35skjpf.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/58ja5trh.

11/09/2025

Nilinaw ng na dapat pagpasiyahan ng Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), dating Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), at hindi ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang mga alitan hinggil sa mga kontrata sa condominium.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinawalang-bisa ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang naging pasya ng RTC na may sibil na pananagutan sa isa't isa sina Vivien M. Cadungog (Cadungog) at Sung Ha Jung (Sung) dahil sa isang kontrata ng pagbebenta na kinasasangkutan ng isang condominium unit.

Sa ilalim ng kontrata, pumayag si Cadungog, isang developer ng isang condominium building sa Cebu City, na ilipat ang unit kay Sung kapag nakumpleto na niya ang pagbabayad ng PHP 3.5 milyon. Nagbayad si Sung ng PHP 175,000 na paunang bayad, at nasundan ng PHP 3 milyon. Ang naiwang balanse ay PHP 258,950. Dahil sa hindi nabayarang halaga, tumanggi si Cadungog na ilipat ang unit.

Nagsampa si Sung ng reklamong kriminal laban kay Cadungog dahil sa paglabag sa Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957 o ang Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree.

Pinawalang-sala ng RTC si Cadungog sa kasong kriminal ngunit iniutos pa rin sa kanya na ilipat ang unit kapag nabuo ang bayad ng presyo ng pagbili o ibalik ang halagang nabayaran na ni Sung. Kwinestiyon ni Cadungog ang desisyong ito at iginiit niyang walang hurisdiksyon ang RTC sa sibil na aspeto ng kanyang kaso na hawak dapat ng HLURB.

Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema pabor kay Cadungog at idineklara nito na walang bisa ang desisyon ng RTC sa usaping sibil ng kaso.

Ipinaliwanag nito na habang maaaring mapagpasyahan sa isang kasong kriminal ang pananagutang sibil, hindi ito nalalapat kapag ang pananagutan ay nagmula sa isang kontrata, tulad ng sa kasong ito.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte na nag-ugat sa kanilang kontrata sa pagbebenta ang civil dispute nina Cadungog at Sung.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, sa ilalim ng PD 957, as amended, may eksklusibong hurisdiksyon ang HLURB (ngayon ay HSAC) sa mga kaso na kinasasangkutan ng kontraktwal at legal na mga obligasyon sa pagitan ng mga mamimili at mga developer ng mga proyekto sa real estate. May awtoridad ang HLURB sa mga ganitong kaso mula nang magsampa ng reklamo si Sung.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151440.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151432.

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

20/08/2025

Belated Happy Birthday Ma'am Roxan!

24/07/2025

Happy Birthday to our super gwapo and talented staff/cousin!