YPGC & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

14/05/2026

⚖️ Easement or Servitude

An easement (or servitude) is a real right imposed on one property (servient estate) for the benefit of another (dominant estate), allowing limited use or enjoyment—such as a right of way.

It does not transfer ownership, but grants specific rights like passage, drainage, light, or view. The owner of the servient estate must respect the easement, while the dominant owner must use it within its intended purpose.

Easements may be:
✔️ Voluntary – created by agreement
✔️ Legal – imposed by law (e.g., right of way for landlocked property)

They can also be continuous or discontinuous, and apparent or non-apparent, depending on how they are used and perceived.

Understanding easements helps ensure proper use of property while respecting the rights of others.

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

13/05/2026

⚖️ Accession

Accession is the right of an owner to everything produced by their property or incorporated into it, whether naturally (like fruits, growth, or alluvium) or artificially (such as buildings, structures, or improvements).

This means that whatever is added to or derived from the property generally belongs to the owner, subject to certain legal rules—especially when the improvements are made by another person.

Accession may apply to:
✔️ Fruits – natural, industrial, or civil (e.g., crops, rent)
✔️ Improvements – buildings or constructions on land
✔️ Attachments – things joined or incorporated into the property

Understanding accession helps clarify ownership rights, especially in cases involving improvements, possession, or disputes over property.

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

12/05/2026

⚖️ Natural Obligation

A Natural Obligation is one that cannot be enforced in court, but is based on equity, justice, and moral duty rather than strict legal obligation.

Although there is no legal compulsion to perform it, once a person voluntarily fulfills a natural obligation, they cannot demand its return or recovery.

This usually arises in situations where a legal obligation has been extinguished—such as a debt that has prescribed—but the person still chooses to fulfill it out of good faith or moral responsibility.

✔️ Not legally enforceable
✔️ Based on moral duty and fairness
✔️ Voluntary performance cannot be taken back

Natural obligations reflect the principle that not all duties are imposed by law—some are guided by conscience.

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

11/05/2026

⚖️ Writ of Certiorari

A Writ of Certiorari is a special civil action used to correct acts of a tribunal, board, or officer that are done with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

It is a remedy that questions whether the authority acted beyond its legal powers or exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

⚠️ It is important to note that certiorari is not a substitute for appeal. It does not review errors of judgment, but focuses only on jurisdictional errors—that is, whether the act was done without or beyond authority.

✔️ Filed to correct grave abuse of discretion
✔️ Focuses on jurisdiction, not correctness of decision

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

08/05/2026

⚖️ Quo Warranto vs. Impeachment

Quo Warranto is a legal action that questions the authority or legal right of a person to hold a public office. It focuses on whether the appointment or election is valid from the beginning, and may result in the official’s removal if found ineligible.

On the other hand, Impeachment is a constitutional and political process used to remove certain high-ranking officials for serious offenses, such as culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, or corruption.

✔️ Quo Warranto – Challenges the legality of holding office
✔️ Impeachment – Removes an official for wrongdoing while in office

In simple terms, Quo Warranto questions “by what authority” a person holds office, while Impeachment addresses misconduct committed during tenure.

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

06/05/2026

⚖️ Mandamus vs. Prohibition

These are special civil actions used to control acts of public officers and tribunals:

Mandamus is a remedy that compels a public officer, tribunal, or agency to perform a ministerial duty that the law clearly requires. It applies when there is a legal duty to act, but the अधिकारी refuses or neglects to perform it.

On the other hand, Prohibition is a remedy that directs a tribunal, board, or officer to stop acting when it is without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

✔️ Mandamus – Commands the performance of a duty
✔️ Prohibition – Stops an unlawful or excessive act

In simple terms, Mandamus tells an authority to act, while Prohibition tells it to refrain from acting.

Understanding these remedies helps in protecting rights against improper government action.

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

05/05/2026

⚖️ Insurance vs. Suretyship

Insurance is a contract where an insurer assumes the risk of loss in exchange for a premium. It protects the insured from uncertain events such as accidents, damage, or death. The insurer’s obligation arises only when the covered risk occurs.

In contrast, Suretyship is an agreement where a surety guarantees the obligation of another (the principal) in favor of a creditor. If the principal fails to comply, the surety is immediately liable, as if they were the one primarily obligated.

✔️ Insurance – Protects against risk or loss
✔️ Suretyship – Guarantees payment or performance
✔️ Insurance – Involves two parties (insurer & insured)
✔️ Suretyship – Involves three parties (creditor, principal, surety)
✔️ Insurance – Liability arises upon occurrence of an event
✔️ Suretyship – Liability arises upon default of the principal

In simple terms, insurance is protection, while suretyship is a guarantee.

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

05/05/2026

https://www.youtube.com/live/xsFGVOoYSLQ?si=XMZ2lBW83_1pTliZ

Our partners Atty. Punis and Atty. Yray shared their legal insights on the law on sales in the Phillippines.

1 like. "ANG KATUMANAN SA BALAUD: Sales"

01/05/2026

⚖️ Justifying Circumstance vs. Exempting Circumstance

Justifying Circumstances make an act lawful, meaning no crime is committed at all. A common example is self-defense, where the act is considered right under the law.

On the other hand, Exempting Circumstances do not make the act lawful, but they remove criminal liability because of a lack of voluntariness—such as insanity, minority, or accident.

✔️ Justifying – Act is lawful, no crime committed
✔️ Exempting – Act is unlawful, but no criminal liability

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

30/04/2026

⚖️ Default vs. Ex Parte Proceeding

Default occurs when a defendant fails to file an answer within the prescribed period, allowing the court to proceed and render judgment based on the plaintiff’s evidence. The defendant may lose the opportunity to participate or present a defense.

On the other hand, an Ex Parte Proceeding is conducted upon the request of one party without notifying or requiring the presence of the other party. This is allowed in certain situations where immediate or unilateral relief is necessary.

✔️ Default – Due to failure to respond
✔️ Ex Parte Proceeding – Initiated by one party without notice to the other

Both affect how a case proceeds, but they differ in cause and application.

Know the process. Protect your legal rights.

📍 Unit 125 Cherry Court, General Maxilom St., Brgy. Zapatera, Cebu City
📩 [email protected]
📞 0977-091-2718

YPGC & Associates Law Office
“At YPGC, we make things easy.”

⚖️

29/04/2026

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session today, April 29, 2026, dismissed the petition for mandamus filed by Catalino Aldea Generillo, Jr., which sought to compel the Senate to immediately convene as an impeachment court to try the charges against Vice President Sara Duterte.

In a 14-0-1 Decision written by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the SC held that mandamus, which is meant to enforce a clear legal duty, was not the proper remedy. It ruled that the Senate’s actions within its sphere cannot be revised or controlled by the judicial department through mandamus. As a co-equal constitutional body, the Senate’s exercise of its duties is beyond the SC’s power of review, except in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

However, specifically for this case and in the interest of equity, the SC treated the petition as one for certiorari and proceeded to determine whether the Senate acted unlawfully or abused its discretion when it did not convene immediately as an impeachment court during its session break.

Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the SC found that the Senate acted on the impeachment complaint in a timely manner.

While the Constitution requires the House of Representatives to act within a certain number of session days on an impeachment complaint, it does not specify a fixed timeframe for the Senate to start an impeachment trial. It simply provides that the trial “shall forthwith proceed,” leaving the timing to the Senate’s discretion.

The SC clarified that the term “forthwith” in Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution means within a reasonable time, which may be longer or shorter, depending on the circumstances of each case. This allows the Senate to make the necessary preparations to convene as an impeachment court.

While the Constitution does not set an exact date for the trial, the Senate must avoid undue delay to uphold the principle that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people.

The SC considered the petition moot because the Senate had begun impeachment preparations, and the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Duterte were nullified by the SC’s July 25, 2025 Decision and January 28, 2026 Resolution in Duterte v. House of Representatives. A case is moot when subsequent events remove any issues, making court rulings unnecessary. Since no Articles of Impeachment remained, the SC had no reason to order the Senate to convene as an impeachment court.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen concurred only in the result, that the petition was moot. However he was of the position that the impeachment court should have been convened immediately and that the impeachment court—not merely the Senate President—should have taken charge of organizing that court. (Updated as of April 29, 2026, 5:30 p.m.)

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa took no part.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164510

The full text of the Decision will be uploaded to the SC website once available.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy.