NOPRE Law and Notarial 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.

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/.

15/01/2026

Sinuspinde o pinagpaliban muna ng ang hatol sa isang child in conflict with the law (CICL), bilang paggiit sa layunin ng Republic Act No. (RA) 9344, o ang Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, na isulong ang pinakamahusay na interes at rehabilitasyon ng bata.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez bago siya magretiro, tinanggihan ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ang apela ni ###265302 (akusado) na napatunayang nagkasala ng qualified r**e ng isang menor de edad. Napatawan siya ng parusang 12 taon hanggang 14 na taon, walong buwan at isang araw sa bilangguan.

Ibinalik ang kaso sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) para ipag-utos na madetine ang akusado sa isang agricultural camp o iba pang pasilidad ng pagsasanay sa ilalim ng Section 51 ng batas.

Kinasuhan ng panggagahasa sa kanyang limang taong gulang na kalaro ang akusado na 15 taong gulang nang mangyari ang krimen.

Labing-walong taong gulang na siya nang hatulan ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) na guilty sa statutory r**e. Ipinataw nito ang parusang pagkakakulong ng walong taon at isang araw hanggang 14 na taon, walong buwan at isang araw, ngunit sinuspinde ng RTC ang kanyang sentensiya.

Sa ilalim ng Section 38 ng RA 9344, may karapatan sa suspensiyon ng kanilang sentensiya ang isang akusado na menor de edad sa panahon ng pagkakasala.

Makalipas ang ilang buwan, naglabas ang RTC ng warrant of arrest, at siya ay ikinulong sa New Bilibid Prison. Tinanggihan ng Court of Appeals ang kanyang apela.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang kanyang hatol ngunit nilinaw na ang krimen ay qualified r**e at ipinag-utos ang suspensiyon ng kanyang sentensiya.

Nakasaad sa Section 40 ng RA 9344 na kapag nasa edad 18 ang CICL habang nasa ilalim ng nasuspinding sentensiya, maaari silang palayain ng korte, iutos na ipatupad ang kanilang sentensiya, o palawigin ang suspendidong sentensiya sa loob ng isang panahon o hanggang umabot sila sa maximum na edad na 21 taong gulang.

Sa kasong ito, 25 taong gulang na ngayon ang akusado na inilipat sa Davao Prison and Penal Farm.

Gayunpaman, pinahaba ng Korte Suprema ang pagsuspinde sa kanyang sentensiya para matupad ang layunin ng batas na inuuna ang pagpapanumbalik, rehabilitasyon, at reintegrasyon ng mga batang nagkasala sa komunidad.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159175.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159085.

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

23/11/2025

23/11/2025

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose Lorenzo R. dela Rosa, a member of the Remedial Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses key issues on land titles and the steps buyers should take before acquiring properties in Episode 95: Protecting the Integrity of Land Titles.

What is a reconstituted title, and how is it different from the original title or the owner's duplicate? What remedies are available to buyers defrauded by sellers?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4NcLjdE0axrvAej7wGMueu?si=8BzkNdj4QIufZoL1glN-Ow

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/episode-95-protecting-the-integrity-of-land-titles/id1852172756?i=1000737742658

YouTube: https://youtu.be/KRcs30UAwwQ

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1MuvG4RZ8s/

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

06/09/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that the donation of subdivision land to a local government unit (LGU) must be in writing and acceptance must be in the same deed or a separate instrument for ownership to be transferred.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division ruled that the Quezon City (QC) LGU failed to establish that the open spaces and road lots in Capital Park Homes Subdivision (CPHS) had been donated to the city for public use as it was not able to show a copy of any deed of donation as well as any proof of acceptance of such donation.

Rainier L. Madrid, a resident of subdivision behind CPHS and QC taxpayer, filed a petition to determine the nature and ownership of open spaces and road lots of CPHS. Originally intended for the exclusive use of CPHS homeowners, these properties have become accessible to the public.

Madrid alleged that the QC LGU use substantial public funds for the improvement of these properties while they were privately owned. He pointed out that VV Soliven, CPHS’ developer, failed to present proof that the properties had been donated to the QC LGU. He stressed that without proof of donation, the properties remain private and cannot be treated as public property.

The QC LGU maintained that under QC Ordinance No. 5852, series of 1964, subdivisions must dedicate 6% of their total open spaces for public use and turn these over to the city before any subdivision plan can be approved. It noted that CPHS’ subdivision plan was approved in August 1969, indicating that CPHS had complied with the ordinance.

Capital Park Homeowners Association, Inc. (CPHAI) admitted the absence of deed of donation but cited a board resolution stating that the properties were donated to the QC LGU.

CPHAI also questioned Madrid’s standing to file the petition, as he was allegedly not directly affected.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition for lack of cause of action and declared Madrid as not a real party-in-interest.

The Court of Appeals (CA) disagreed and recognized Madrid’s right to file the case since he could be affected by the alleged misuse of public funds. It held that the areas in question remain private property as there was no proof that the subdivision developer had donated them to the QC LGU.

The SC upheld the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that the QC LGU must prove a valid transfer of property in its favor. However, the LGU did not provide a deed of donation or any proof of acceptance, as required under the Civil Code.

The SC clarified that open spaces and road lots in subdivisions do not automatically become government property. LGUs cannot rely solely on ordinances or laws to claim ownership. A written donation is required to transfer ownership. Without it, the property remains private and cannot be claimed by the local government.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/499tc8hm

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/bde7hv7u

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

31/08/2025

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi, who served as Bar Examiner in Remedial Law in 2022, discusses the circumstances under which shortcuts in public procurement, or government procurements without public bidding, may be justified in Episode 83: When Procurement Violation Does Not Amount to Graft.

What is RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and who and what are covered under this law? Why are there strict rules for the procurement of goods in government? In a procurement case, how does graft manifest?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, the website, and YouTube.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0nqiLrzC3WeehAHJw0Dadr?si=keKV821ET3O6sJiGYeC2Ew

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

YouTube: https://youtu.be/d0f0Qio-aB0

29/07/2025

The (SC) has affirmed the authority of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to execute the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in cases involving unfair labor practices (ULP).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division upheld the NLRC’s order directing Guagua National Colleges (GNC) to pay its employees the agreed economic benefits, but adjusted how those benefits were computed.

The case arose from negotiations in 2009 to renew the five-year CBA between GNC and its unions. Although GNC agreed to provide benefits such as a rice subsidy, loyalty pay, and clothing allowance, it continued to delay signing the draft CBA. Frustrated, the unions filed a notice of strike.

The NLRC ruled that GNC bargained in bad faith, which is an unfair labor practice. It also declared the final CBA draft as the parties’ agreement. NLRC ordered GNC to pay its employees the agreed benefits covering 2009 up to the present date, which at that time was 2017.

GNC questioned the order directing them to pay, arguing that only voluntary arbitrators—not the NLRC—had the power to enforce the CBA terms.

Upholding the authority of the NLRC, the SC clarified that while voluntary arbitrators generally handle CBA implementation, the Labor Code authorizes the NLRC to enforce CBA provisions when gross violations amounting to ULP are involved.

The SC said that in this case, it was the NLRC which was best positioned to enforce the CBA, having reviewed it. Sending the case to voluntary arbitrators for implementation would only cause delays, increase the likelihood of multiple lawsuits, and prolong the resolution of rights and obligations between the parties.

However, the SC ruled that the computation of benefits was incorrect. It held that the computation should exclude the signing bonus and cover only the five-year CBA term, or the years 2009 to 2014.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3j53bt6j.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yc46kjar.

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

15/07/2025

Iginiit ng na ang pagtatago ng homosexuality ng isang tao mula sa kanyang asawa ay maaaring ituring na panloloko at maaaring gamitin bilang isang batayan para mapawalang-bisa ang isang kasal.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., pinawalang-bisa ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang kasal ng isang babae sa asawa nito na itinago ang kanyang homosexuality bago sila ikasal.

Ayon sa talaan, nagkakilala ang dalawa sa social media at naging magkasintahan makalipas ang isang taon. Sa kanilang unang date, napansin ng babae na tila walang gana ang lalake dahil hindi man siya hinalikan o hinawakan ang kamay. Iniwasan din ng lalake na tabihan siya sa tuwing sila ay kumakain o bumibiyahe. Paliwanag ng lalake, nahihiya lang siya at walang kumpiyansa sa sarili.

Nagpatuloy ang kanilang relasyon pero nagtrabaho ang lalaki sa ibang bansa. Ikinasal sila makalipas ang dalawang taon.

Pero patuloy pa rin na umiwas ang lalaki na makipagtalik. Sa halip, nakikipagtalo siya sa asawa. Dalawang buwan matapos ang kasal, nangibang bansa uli ang lalaki at hindi na nakipag-ugnayan pa sa kanyang asawa.

Kalaunan, may nakita ang babae na mga magasin na may hubad na larawan ng mga lalaki sa gamit ng kanyang asawa. Nang komprontahin, inamin ng lalaki ang kanyang sekswalidad. Naghain ng petisyon ang babae para ipawalang-bisa ang kanilang kasal.

Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na ang pagpayag ng babae sa kasal ay nakuha sa pamamagitan ng panloloko at maaring ipawalang-bisa ang kasal batay sa mapanlokong paglilihim ng sekswalidad sa ilalim ng Article 45(3) kaugnay ng Article 46(4) ng Family Code.

Nakasaad sa Article 45 ng Family Code na maaaring mapawalang-bisa ang kasal kung ang pahintulot ng isang partido ay nakuha sa pamamagitan ng panloloko, basta’t hindi natuloy ang pagsasama ng mag-asawa matapos matuklasan ang panloloko. Ayon naman sa Article 46, ang pagtatago ng sekswalidad mula sa asawa ay maituturing na panloloko.

Naniwala ang Korte Suprema sa mga paratang ng babae at sinabing hindi pwedeng balewalain ang naging pag-amin ng lalaki at ang kanyang hindi maipaliwanag na katahimikan noong tinanong ang kanyang sekswalidad. Itinago ng lalake ang kanyang sekswalidad para kumbinsihin ang babae na pakasalan siya.

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

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/yjn9a89f.

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

The (SC) has reiterated that hiding one’s homosexuality from a spouse can be considered fraud and may be used as a ground to annul a marriage.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division annulled the marriage of a woman whose husband concealed his homosexuality before they got married.

The couple met on social media. On their first date, the woman noticed that the man seemed distant. The man also avoided sitting beside her. When asked about this, the man said he was just shy and lacked confidence.

The two kept a long-distance relationship as the man worked overseas. Notwithstanding this, they got married two years later.

But the man continued to avoid intimacy and often started arguments to avoid his wife. Just two months after the wedding, he returned overseas and stopped communicating with her.

Later, the woman found magazines with half-naked and naked male models among her husband’s things. When she confronted him, he admitted that he was homosexual. The woman then filed for annulment of their marriage.

The SC ruled that the woman’s consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud, and that the marriage must be annulled on the ground of fraudulent concealment of sexuality, following Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(4) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Article 45 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 states that a marriage can be annulled if one party’s consent was obtained through fraud, as long as the couple did not continue living together after discovering the fraud. Article 46 further specifies that hiding one’s homosexuality or lesbianism from a spouse is considered fraud.

The SC gave credence to the woman’s allegations, noting that the man’s admission and his unexplained silence when his sexuality was being questioned could not be ignored. It found that the husband intentionally hid his homosexuality to persuade the woman to stay and marry him.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yjn9a89f.

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