KVP Cabahug; Amigo-Escobar & Partners Law Office, The Regency Crest, Paseo Saturnino, Maria Luisa Road, Banilad Cebu City, Philippines, Cebu City (2026)

03/09/2026

DELAYED TURNOVER OF YOUR CONDO: CAN YOU CANCEL AND GET A REFUND?

Imagine this You purchased a condominium unit on pre-selling terms. The developer represented that the project would be completed and your unit turned over on a specified date.

You faithfully paid your installments. But the promised turnover date came and went and years later, the unit still has not been delivered.

Can you cancel and demand your money back?

Potentially, YES depending on the status, condition and other factors.

Under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957 (PD 957), a buyer may suspend installment payments when the developer fails to develop the condominium project according to the approved plans and within the required period. If the buyer chooses to desist from further payment because of the developer’s failure to develop the project, the buyer may be entitled to reimbursement of the total amount paid, subject to the conditions provided by law.

This is materially different from a situation where the buyer simply changes their mind or can no longer afford the property. The legal consequences of cancellation caused by a developer’s non-compliance may differ substantially from voluntary cancellation by the buyer.

Situational Example:

Juan purchased a pre-selling condominium unit and was promised turnover in 2020. He consistently paid the required installments, but by 2026, the project remained substantially unfinished and the unit had not been delivered.

Juan eventually decides that he can no longer wait.

The developer cannot automatically treat Juan’s cancellation as an ordinary buyer-initiated cancellation and simply apply contractual forfeiture provisions. If the cancellation is attributable to the developer’s failure to develop or deliver as legally and contractually required, Juan may invoke PD 957 and pursue the appropriate relief, including a claim for refund, depending on the evidence and circumstances.

Disputes involving subdivision and condominium buyers may fall within the jurisdiction of the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC).

Delayed turnover is not always just a delay. It may give rise to enforceable rights and remedies.

Before accepting a developer’s refund computation, forfeiture, restructuring, or alternative-unit offer, have your Contract to Sell, payment records, promised turnover date, License to Sell, advertisements, and communications with the developer properly reviewed by a property lawyer

This post is for general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. The availability and extent of a refund depend on the particular facts, contractual provisions, evidence, and applicable law in each case

03/09/2026

Another HSAC Case Filed by KVP Law

KVP Law has filed another case before the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) involving a real estate development that has remained undelivered for nearly a decade.

Despite the considerable passage of time and the buyer’s compliance with contractual obligations, the developer allegedly failed to complete the development and turn over the property as undertaken.

For property buyers, prolonged delays are not simply matters of inconvenience. Depending on the circumstances, failure to develop or deliver a property in accordance with the representations, contractual commitments, and legally prescribed periods may give rise to remedies under Presidential Decree No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree) and other applicable laws.

Disclaimer: Case details and identifying information have been intentionally withheld to preserve client confidentiality. Filing of a case does not constitute a determination of liability; the allegations remain subject to the proceedings and evidence before the proper tribunal.

02/09/2026

CLIENT DISCUSSION PROPERTY & RELATED LEGAL MATTERS

KVP Law Office, through Atty. KVP, recently attended to clients concerning property and other related legal matters.

The clients voluntarily sought the Firm’s assistance after previously engaging another legal office. The meeting involved a discussion of the circumstances surrounding their concerns, review of the relevant documents, and drafting of the necessary legal documents in connection with the matters presented.

The discussion likewise covered the legal implications of the clients’ circumstances and the appropriate steps moving forward.

Client identities and specific details are withheld in observance of attorney-client confidentiality.

01/09/2026

“SANDALI LANG AKO!” BUT YOU’RE BLOCKING SOMEONE’S DRIVEWAY. IS THAT ILLEGAL?

Yes. Even if you stay inside the vehicle, even if your hazard lights are on, and even if you intend to leave after only a few minutes, you cannot simply block a private driveway.

Under Section 46(f) of Republic Act No. 4136, otherwise known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, a driver shall not park a vehicle or permit it to stand, whether attended or unattended, upon a highway “in front of a private driveway.”

This distinction is important: the law does not merely say that you cannot leave your vehicle there. It expressly covers allowing the vehicle “to stand” and applies whether the vehicle is attended or unattended.

SITUATIONAL EXAMPLE

You arrive at a residential subdivision and see an open space directly in front of someone’s gate.

You tell yourself:

“Five minutes lang. Naa ra man ko sa sakyanan. If mugawas ang tag-iya, ibalhin ra nako.”

But while you are waiting, the homeowner arrives and cannot enter the property because your vehicle is blocking the driveway.

“I was only there for five minutes” is not, by itself, an exemption under Section 46.

The same provision also prohibits parking in several other specified locations, including within an intersection, on a crosswalk, within the prescribed distance from intersections and fire hydrants, on the roadway side of another vehicle parked at the curb (double parking), and where official NO PARKING signs have been erected.

“BUT THE ROAD IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS PUBLIC!”

That does not mean every portion of a public road is automatically available for parking.

A homeowner generally does not acquire ownership over the public road simply because it fronts the property. But motorists likewise do not acquire an unrestricted right to park anywhere on that road. RA 4136 itself imposes restrictions including the express prohibition against parking or allowing a vehicle to stand in front of a private driveway.

So the issue is not:

“Who owns the road?”

The proper question is:

“Is parking legally permitted at that particular location?”

If it is directly in front of a private driveway, Section 46 says no.

Local traffic and parking ordinances may also impose additional restrictions, enforcement procedures, towing rules, and current administrative penalties depending on the city or municipality.

LEGAL REMINDER: Being inside the vehicle, turning on your hazard lights, or saying “sandali lang” does not automatically convert a prohibited parking location into a legal one.

Know the law before you park. A few minutes of convenience should not become someone else’s obstruction.

This post is for general legal information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific incident.

29/08/2026

REAL ESTATE LEGAL DISCUSSION: CAN YOU SUBDIVIDE LAND AND IMMEDIATELY SELL THE LOTS?

Owning a parcel of land does not automatically mean that an owner may subdivide it into several lots, advertise them, accept reservations, and sell them to the public without complying with regulatory requirements.

Under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 957, subdivision projects covered by the decree must be registered with the proper housing regulatory authority.

More importantly, Section 4, in relation to Section 5 of P.D. 957, regulates subdivision projects offered for sale to the public, while Section 7 requires the issuance of a License to Sell (LTS) before the registered owner or dealer may sell subdivision lots or condominium units in a registered project.

The law was enacted primarily to protect buyers from fraudulent or unscrupulous subdivision and condominium practices.

Selling without the required registration and License to Sell may therefore expose the responsible developer, owner, dealer, broker, or salesperson to regulatory consequences under P.D. 957, depending on the circumstances.

SITUATIONAL EXAMPLE: Mr. X owns a 5-hectare property. He decides to divide the property into 100 residential lots, constructs internal roads, markets the project on social media, and begins accepting:

• Php20,000 reservation fees
• monthly equity payments
• down payments from prospective buyers

Mr. X tells buyers:

“The License to Sell is still being processed, but you can already reserve your lot.”

Is this automatically permissible simply because Mr. X owns the mother title?

NO.

Ownership of the land is different from regulatory authority to develop and sell a subdivision project. If the project falls within P.D. 957, the developer cannot simply rely on ownership of the property or tell buyers that the LTS will be secured later.

WHAT SHOULD BUYERS CHECK?

Before paying substantial amounts for a subdivision lot, buyers should verify the specific project, its approved plans, developer, and the applicable Certificate of Registration and License to Sell with the appropriate government authority.

A particularly important red flag is when a seller presents an LTS but the document actually pertains to another phase, project, location, or development. An LTS for Project A does not automatically authorize the sale of lots in Project B.

KVPRO REMINDER

Before buying a subdivided lot, don’t check only the title. Check whether the project itself is legally authorized to be sold.

A low price, attractive payment terms, or the promise that “permits are already being processed” should never replace proper due diligence.

For general legal and real estate information only. The requirement for an LTS and the remedies available depend on the nature of the project and the particular circumstances of each transaction.

For more information, visit KVP Cabahug; Amigo-Escobar & Partners Law Office

29/08/2026

KVP LAW OFFICE ADVISORY: Please be advised that KVP Cabahug: Amigo-Escobar & Partners Law Office will have NO OFFICE on Monday, August 31, 2026, in observance of National Heroes Day.

Regular office operations will resume on the next working day. Emails and other inquiries received during the holiday will be attended to promptly upon our return.

For urgent legal concerns, clients may reach us through the WhatsApp contact indicated in the advisory.

As we observe National Heroes Day, we honor the courage, sacrifice, and service of the men and women who contributed to the freedom and nationhood of the Philippines.

28/08/2026

ANOTHER DAY WITH ANOTHER COURT FILING.

Another case has been formally filed by KVP Law Office in the Lapu Lapu City, Cebu Hall of Justice adding to a week filled with client conferences, preparation of pleadings, court appearances, case build-up, and ongoing legal proceedings.

This latest filing involves family law, civil status, and the determination and protection of rights under Philippine law matters that require not only careful legal preparation, but also sensitivity, discretion, and strict compliance with procedural requirements.

As one filing follows another, the Firm continues to handle its growing litigation and legal workload with the same commitment to diligence, preparation, confidentiality, and effective representation.

Disclaimer: Certain information has been deliberately concealed to preserve attorney-client confidentiality and protect the privacy of the parties and the proceedings.

27/08/2026

PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGER: ATTY. KVP CABAHUG EARNS CPMA® PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION | ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL MILESTONE

KVP Law congratulates Atty. KVP R. Cabahug, REB, REA, MM REM, on successfully completing the professional certification program and earning the designation Certified Property Manager and Administrator (CPMA®).

Conducted only once a year, The program, conducted over several months, provided specialized and technical training in Property Management and Administration, a multidisciplinary field encompassing management, accounting and financial administration, legal and regulatory compliance, construction, building operations, maintenance, and asset management.

Following the completion of the required coursework, Atty. Cabahug successfully passed the written examination, completing the requirements for the conferment of the CPMA® professional designation.

The program was attended by professionals from both the private and public sectors, including executives, fellow lawyers, engineers, real estate practitioners, and professionals engaged in residential, commercial and other property management.

Atty. Cabahug pursued the program alongside her continuing responsibilities in legal practice and real estate brokerage, further strengthening her multidisciplinary expertise at the intersection of law, real estate, and property management.

Congratulations, Atty. Karina Cabahug, REB, REA, MM REM, CPMA®!

24/08/2026

BP 22 UPDATE: NOTICE OF DISHONOR CAN NOW GO DIGITAL

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Carlos and Carlos v. People, G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2026, En Banc is significant for creditors, businesses, and individuals dealing with bouncing checks.

The case clarifies the role of electronic communications such as text messages and email in proving notice of dishonor in cases involving Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22)

FACTS OF THE CASE: Spouses Amel and Marivic Carlos were charged with six counts of violation of BP 22 after issuing six checks to Tire Star, Inc. in payment of their account.

When the checks were presented to the bank, they were dishonored because the account had already been closed.

The prosecution maintained that notice of dishonor was served upon the spouses, but they failed to pay the amounts of the checks or make arrangements for their payment within the period provided by law.

The Metropolitan Trial Court convicted them. The conviction was subsequently affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT SAY?

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Importantly, the Court discussed how modern means of communication may be used in relation to the notice of dishonor requirement.

Where the drawee bank sends notification of dishonor through the drawer’s text message and/or email address on record, such electronic communication may be presented to corroborate the fact of service, provided that it is properly authenticated in accordance with the Rules of Court and the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

However, there is an important qualification:

❗️An email or text message should not automatically be treated as sufficient proof by itself.

❗️The Court emphasized the importance of reliable proof of service and held that an Affidavit of Service of the Notice of Dishonor is mandatory, regardless of the mode of service employed. ❗️Electronic notification may support the evidence of service, but it does not dispense with the need to establish proper service.

WHY IS NOTICE OF DISHONOR IMPORTANT?

Under BP 22, the mere fact that a check bounced does not mean that the prosecution can disregard the statutory requirements.

Notice of dishonor is particularly important because the law gives the drawer an opportunity to pay the holder the amount due or make arrangements for payment within five (5) banking days from receipt of notice.

Thus, in prosecuting a BP 22 case, proving actual or proper receipt of the notice of dishonor remains a critical evidentiary matter.

SITUATIONAL EXAMPLE

Suppose Juan issued a ₱300,000 check to Maria as payment of an obligation.

Maria deposited the check, but the bank returned it marked “ACCOUNT CLOSED.”

Maria then sends Juan a Notice of Dishonor through his known email address and other available means and properly documents the service, including the required proof or affidavit of service.

Juan receives the notice but neither pays the ₱300,000 nor makes arrangements for full payment within the period provided by BP 22.

The electronic communications may now form part of the evidence establishing notification, subject to authentication and compliance with the evidentiary requirements recognized by the Supreme Court.

Juan therefore cannot simply assume:

“Email lang naman iyon, so I can ignore it.”

At the same time, the complainant should not assume:

“I sent an email, therefore notice is automatically proven.”

Proper documentation and proof of service remain essential.

KVP LEGAL TAKEAWAY

Technology has changed how people communicate, and Philippine courts increasingly recognize electronic evidence. But electronic convenience does not eliminate evidentiary safeguards.

For creditors: preserve the dishonored check, bank return slip, notice of dishonor, proof of transmission and receipt, electronic records, and affidavit of service.

For check issuers: do not ignore a notice of dishonor simply because it was communicated electronically. Once properly served, the statutory period to address the dishonored check becomes legally significant.

Carlos and Carlos v. People reminds us that in BP 22 cases, the manner of communication may evolve but proof of notice remains indispensable.

This post is for general legal information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The application of BP 22 depends on the particular facts and evidence of each case. Consult a lawyer for advice concerning a specific transaction or case.

24/08/2026

SETTLED. Another successful and smooth settlement concluded at KVP Law Office.

After negotiations and discussions, the parties were able to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, including the settlement payment and the terms necessary to finally resolve their legal concern.

Instead of proceeding to a lengthy, costly, and uncertain court battle, our firm assisted the parties in finding a practical and amicable resolution protecting our client’s interests while avoiding unnecessary litigation.

Not every legal dispute has to end in court. When circumstances permit, a properly negotiated and documented settlement can provide clients with a faster, more practical, and more cost-efficient resolution.

At KVP Law Office, our role is not only to litigate when necessary, but also to help clients determine when settlement is the better legal strategy.

This post is for general informational purposes only. Client identities and confidential details have been withheld in accordance with professional responsibility and confidentiality obligations.

KVP Cabahug; Amigo-Escobar & Partners Law Office

03/09/2026

03/09/2026

02/09/2026

01/09/2026

29/08/2026

29/08/2026

28/08/2026

27/08/2026

24/08/2026

24/08/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request