J.D. Bermil Law

30/08/2026

𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝘄𝗻?

𝗬𝗲𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. A person may enter into a contract of sale involving property that he or she does not yet own, because a sale is perfected by agreement on the property and the price. 𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱. If the seller later acquires ownership, that title may pass by operation of law to the buyer under 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟭𝟰𝟯𝟰 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 (𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟵).

However, at the time of delivery or consummation, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽. Otherwise, the seller cannot convey ownership, following the principle 𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘁 𝗾𝘂𝗼𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁—one cannot give what one does not have.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲:

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲: the buyer may acquire that title by operation of law.

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹: the seller cannot transfer ownership, and the sale may be void if the seller was neither the owner nor authorized by the owner.

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹: ownership generally remains with the seller until the buyer fully pays the price; the seller may therefore retain ownership before that condition occurs.

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: You can contract to sell property you do not yet own, but 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿. A buyer who paid in good faith under a void sale may, however, demand the return of the price to prevent unjust enrichment.

𝗦𝗲𝗲: Villeza, et al. v. Aliangan, et al. (2020), Gonzales, et al. v. Basas, et al. (2022), Ciacho v. De Guia, et al. (2025), Rodriguez v. Sioson, et al. (2016) and Delos Reyes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. (1999)

30/08/2026

SC: Judges Cannot Notarize Affidavits of Cohabitation of Parties Whose Marriage They Solemnize; Doing So Constitutes Gross Ignorance of the Law

The Supreme Court ruled that municipal trial court judges are prohibited from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize, as such documents are not connected with their official judicial functions.

Also, the Court explained that the law and the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage contemplate that the person administering the oath and the solemnizing officer are different individuals. Allowing a judge to notarize the affidavit would render his duty to assess its contents meaningless, as he cannot impartially review a document he himself notarized.

(Link in the comments)

30/08/2026

𝗜𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗚𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁, 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗶𝘁?

𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗻𝗼. If money is accidentally transferred to your GCash account, you may be legally required to return it. 𝗞𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗶 𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟮𝟭𝟱𝟰 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 (𝟭𝟵𝟰𝟵) provides that when something is received without a right to demand it and was delivered through mistake, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀. The rule applies when there is no binding obligation between the sender and recipient, and the transfer was made by mistake rather than as a gift or for another lawful reason. This obligation exists by operation of law, not because the recipient agreed to it.

If you know the funds are not yours and nevertheless retain or spend them, you may also be liable under 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟮𝟮 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. In one case, the Court held that a person who knowingly received erroneously credited funds and spent them at the bank’s expense was obliged to return the money.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗱𝗼:

𝗗𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄, 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀.

𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗚𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁.

Notify your own bank or e-wallet provider, if applicable.

𝗥𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱, 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀—𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿.

Keep screenshots, transaction records, and all communications.

𝗦𝗲𝗲: BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Barcellano (2025), BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Barcellano (2025)

29/08/2026

Keep The Faith!
ANIMO LASALLE 💚💜

22/08/2026

⚖️📣

𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁?

Yes. Deleted messages may still be used as evidence in Philippine courts, but their admissibility and evidentiary weight depend on how they are preserved, authenticated, and presented.

Under the 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, text messages and similar communications whose evidence is not recorded or retained are treated as 𝗲𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.

They may be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the communication or who has personal knowledge of it; if that witness is unavailable, other competent evidence may be admitted.

The Supreme Court applied this rule in 𝗣𝘂𝗿𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗻 𝘃. 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀, 𝗚𝗥 𝗡𝗼. 𝟮𝟱𝟭𝟳𝟳𝟴 (𝗙𝗲𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝟮𝟮, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯), holding that the absence of copies of text messages did not prevent proof of their existence because the recipient’s testimony could establish the messages.

The conviction, however, rested on the 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, not merely on the messages.

Deleted messages may also be recovered or preserved through 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

The 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝘆𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 (𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟴) recognize forensic methods such as 𝗺𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗶𝘁-𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴, which can create clone copies of computer drives and potentially retrieve deleted files while avoiding alteration or corruption of the original data.

𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆, 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵, 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀:

🔹 Testimony of a sender, recipient, or person with personal knowledge;

🔹 Testimony explaining how the messages were recovered or preserved;

🔹 Forensic extraction or other competent technical evidence;

🔹 Authenticated screenshots, printouts, device records, or backups; and

🔹 Corroborating evidence showing the sender’s identity, integrity of the messages, and absence of material alteration.

𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲.

It usually creates an 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘆-𝘄𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲: the proponent must sufficiently show that the messages existed, accurately reflect their contents, and came from the person alleged to have sent them.

19/08/2026

19/08/2026

19/08/2026

19/08/2026

🏙️‼️

The (SC) has ruled that a sales agent’s promise to issue a Contract to Sell after payment of reservation fee is not an “advertisement” under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957, or the 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦, that would form part of developer’s warranties. However, the developer may still be required to refund a buyer if it fails to honor that promise.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ordered Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. (Empire East) to refund the payments made by John Edrem Bautista (Bautista) after it failed to issue the promised Contract to Sell.

Bautista paid Empire East for a residential unit PHP 130,000, consisting of a PHP 20,000 reservation fee and PHP 110,000 in additional payments. He claimed he made the payments because Empire East’s sales agent promised to issue a Contract to Sell once he paid the reservation fee. When more than a year passed without the contract being issued, Bautista stopped making payments and demanded a refund.

The SC, agreeing with both the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) and the Court of Appeals which ruled in Bautista’s favor, held that Bautista was entitled to a refund but clarified that the sales agent’s promise did not fall under Section 19 of PD 957.

The SC clarified that Section 19, which mandates truthful and non-misleading advertisements and sales materials, applies only to materials intended for the general public, such as those in those in newspapers, radio, TV, or similar mass communication channels. It does not cover promises made by a sales agent to individual buyers.

The SC emphasized that buyers remain protected, as developers may still be held liable under their contractual obligations and other applicable laws.

The SC ordered Empire East to refund Bautista the PHP 130,000 with interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the filing of the complaint in 2012, as well as to pay PHP 260,000 in exemplary damages, which courts award to discourage wrongful conduct and warn against similar actions.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171359.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/272556-1.pdf.

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

18/08/2026