PSEF Law Firm

09/07/2025

15/02/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a notice to cancel a contract to sell real estate must be notarized under Republic Act No. 6552, popularly known as the Maceda Law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division upheld the validity of contracts to sell between State Investment Trust, Inc. (SITI) and spouses Carlos and Victoria Baculo (Spouses Baculo) after SITI failed to meet the Maceda Law’s cancellation requirements.

The Maceda Law’s purpose is to protect real estate buyers on installment payments against one-sided conditions in contracts.

SITI owned two parcels of land, which it offered to sell to Spouses Baculo through two contracts to sell. When the latter failed to complete payments, SITI sent letters demanding payment and, later, declaring the contracts to sell cancelled. The Spouses Baculo refused to vacate the property, leading Siti to file an ejectment case.

The SC ruled that while a seller may cancel a contract to sell under the Maceda Law on its own without going to court, it must still comply with Section 4 of the law, which requires: (1) a 60-day grace period for the buyer to settle overdue installments; (2) a notarized notice of cancellation from the seller; and (3) cancellation only after 30 days from the buyer’s receipt of the notarized notice.

In this case, the SC found that SITI’s letters were not notarized, and it failed to provide the required 60-day grace period, giving only five days to settle the balance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-notarized-notice-required-to-cancel-real-estate-contract-under-maceda-law/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/237934-state-investment-trust-inc-vs-carlos-baculo/.

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

15/02/2025

Iginiit ng na ang isang abiso para kanselahin ang isang kontrata sa pagbebenta ng real estate ay dapat ma-notaryo sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. 6552, na mas kilala sa tawag na Maceda Law.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., kinatigan ng Second Division ng Korte ang bisa ng mga kontrata para sa pagbebenta sa pagitan ng State Investment Trust, Inc. (SITI) at mag-asawang Carlos at Victoria Baculo matapos mabigo ang SITI na matugunan ang mga kinakailangan sa pagkansela ng Maceda Law.

Ang layunin ng Maceda Law ay protektahan ang mga bumibili ng real estate gaya ng lupa at bahay sa pamamagitan ng installment payment laban sa hindi patas na mga kondisyon sa mga kontrata.

Sinabi ng Korte na habang maaaring kanselahin ng isang nagbebenta ang kontrata sa pagbebenta sa ilalim ng Maceda Law nang hindi pumupunta sa korte, dapat pa rin itong sumunod sa Section 4 ng batas, na nangangailangan ng: (1) 60-araw na palugit para sa bumibili para bayaran ang mga overdue na installment, na binibilang mula sa petsa kung kailan dapat bayaran ang installment; (2) isang notaryadong paunawa ng pagkansela mula sa nagbebenta; at (3) pagkansela lamang pagkatapos ng 30 araw mula nang matanggap ng mamimili ang notarized notice.

Napag-alaman ng Korte na ang mga sulat ng SITI ay hindi notarized, at bigo itong magbigay ng kinakailangang 60-araw na palugit dahil limang araw lang ang binigay para bayaran ang balanse.

Sa ilalim ng Revised Rules on Evidence, ang isang wastong notary act ay nangyayari kapag ang isang tao ay humarap sa isang notary public at kinumpirma ang kusang-loob na pagpirma sa isang dokumento. Ginagawang pampubliko ng notarization ang mga pribadong dokumento at pinapayagan ang mga nagbebenta na kanselahin ang kontrata nang mag-isa, kahit na walang kasunduan mula sa ibang mga partido.

Ang kaso ay may kinalaman sa dalawang bahagi ng lupa sa Batasan Hills, Quezon City na pag-aari ng SITI na inalok nitong ibenta sa mag-asawang Baculo sa pamamagitan ng dalawang kontrata para sa pagbebenta.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-notarized-notice-required-to-cancel-real-estate-contract-under-maceda-law/.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/237934-state-investment-trust-inc-vs-carlos-baculo/.

15/02/2025

The has ruled that only the injured spouse – not the one who knowingly entered a bigamous marriage – can ask the court to nullify it.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Supreme Court En Banc denied a Filipina’s petition to declare her second marriage void for being bigamous.

The petitioner first married a Chinese national in Hong Kong and the Philippines. While working in Hong Kong, she had an affair with a Filipino whom she later married when she returned to the Philippines.

Her first husband later obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which a Parañaque court recognized, effectively dissolving their marriage.

After 14 years, she separated from her second husband and sought to nullify their marriage, arguing that it was void for being bigamous. She also requested permission to remarry.

Denying her petition, the Supreme Court stated that only the aggrieved or innocent spouse from either marriage has the right to petition for the annulment of a second marriage. In this case, it was the petitioner’s first husband who held that right, but he lost it after obtaining a divorce. This right did not transfer to the petitioner, who is considered the guilty spouse.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-guilty-spouse-cannot-seek-nullity-of-bigamous-marriage/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/g-r-259520/.

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

08/11/2023

10/02/2023

30/06/2021

11/06/2020

📣 📣
Labor Advisory No. 22-20

Here are the pay rules for the Regular Holiday on Friday, 12 June 2020

--
To download a copy of this advisory, click on this link: http://bwc.dole.gov.ph/issuances/labor-advisories

01/06/2020

The firm will open on limited hours starting June 1, 2020.

In-office meeting, however, will be limited to urgent matters only.

For your consultation and notarization, please set an appointment before visiting our office by sending a message through this page or text or call 0920 967 2265 / 0922 961 3324.

For our retainer clients, please do message directly our staff and lawyers for your concerns and needs.

Please stay safe, everyone!

-PSEF Lawfirm