Chang & Alcos Law Office

07/09/2026

Helping you navigate legal complexities with disciplined legal foresight.

02/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that homeowners’ associations (HOAs) may impose sanctions or penalties on members who fail to pay association dues, but it cannot deprive them of their right to use common areas, including subdivision roads.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division dismissed the petition filed by the former directors and officers of La Costa Brava Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Association).

Spouses Linley and Juvy Retirado failed to pay their monthly association dues from 2016 to 2021. Consequently, the Association declared them delinquent and enforced several penalties.

Among the sanctions were banning of grass-cutting or maintenance within five meters from the property; reducing the frequency of garbage collection; prohibiting food, package, appliance, and gas deliveries to their residence; preventing taxis, tricycles, and ride-hailing vehicles from entering the subdivision to fetch them; barring guests from entering the subdivision to visit them; and imposing delivery fees on trucks and vehicles bringing supplies and materials to their construction site.

The spouses filed a complaint before the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), which ruled that the sanctions violated Republic Act No. (RA) 9904, or 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘨𝘯𝘢 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘏𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. The HSAC also permanently disqualified the officers responsible from holding any position in the Association.

The officers appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition.

The SC affirmed the HSAC’s ruling on the penalties.

Section 7(a) of RA 9904 grants homeowners two distinct rights: the right to enjoy basic community services and facilities, and the right to use common areas.

The SC clarified that HOAs may impose sanctions on delinquent members under their bylaws. However, this authority is not absolute. HOAs can restrict delinquent members from accessing or enjoying certain community services and facilities, but they cannot deny the right to use common areas like roads.

Applying this distinction, the SC held that restricting deliveries, transportation, and guests effectively violated the spouses’ right to use the subdivision roads.

The SC also rejected the officers’ claim that their violation was not grave enough to warrant permanent disqualification from holding office in the Association. The SC ruled that restricting access to subdivision roads for basic needs such as the delivery of goods and transportation caused great harm and dangerous consequences—a violation serious and grave enough to justify the permanent disqualification.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-homeowners-associations-may-sanction-delinquent-members-but-cannot-restrict-use-of-subdivision-roads/

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278137-reuben-mikhail-p-sabig-et-al-vs-court-of-appeals-18th-division-cebu-city-and-spouses-linley-and-juvy-retirado/

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

24/08/2026

Precision Planning: Why Legal Risk Management is Best.

Precise planning and disciplined legal foresight can drastically minimize your exposure to legal risks. Most reach out only after a crisis has already hit. By that time, the damage will have already been done. Waiting until a lawsuit lands on your desk means playing defense with your time, assets, and reputation. Fixing these legal vulnerabilities before they turn into costly disputes is best for you and your business.

With us, we assist you in leveraging these by identifying and resolving blind spots in:
- Contracts and Commercial Agreements;
- Labor and Regulatory Compliance;
- Real Estate Acquisitions; and
- Corporate Governance Vulnerabilities.

Among several strategies is structuring clear, enforceable safeguards into your business’s everyday transactions. Legal guidance is a must for a growing business, whether you are negotiating a business deal, purchasing real estate, or drafting commercial agreements. Obtain guidance at the outset to protect your growth.

19/08/2026

New Jurisprudence ALERT‼️

Here, the rule on rescission of contracts was applied by the High Court in ruling that refund was still warranted in favor of the buyer.

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.

19/08/2026

⚖️⚖️⚖️

17/08/2026

The has acquitted a woman of bigamy, ruling that a prior marriage that was void from the beginning (𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘣 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰) may be raised as a defense even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Pampanga and the Court of Appeals (CA), which had found Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira guilty of bigamy.

Lapira faced a bigamy charge under Article 349 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 for marrying Jimmy Fariscal while still married to Takahiko Sato as evidenced by a marriage certificate from the Office of the Civil Registrar General.

During trial, Lapira argued that her marriage to Sato was void because no ceremony took place and no marriage license had been issued, both of which were required for validity. The Local Civil Registrar confirmed that there was no record of the application for a marriage license for Lapira and Sato.

In acquitting Lapira, the SC applied its ruling in the 2021 case of 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘰 𝘷. 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, which held that an accused in a bigamy case may directly argue that a previous marriage is void as a defense, even without a prior court declaration.

The SC explained that one of the essential elements of bigamy is the existence of a valid prior marriage. If the first marriage was void from the beginning, that element is absent.

In this case, the certification from the Local Civil Registrar sufficiently proved that no marriage license was issued to Lapira and Sato. This certification was enough to counter the presumption of the marriage certificate’s validity.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171178.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165698.

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

17/08/2026

Did you know that committing online fraud using fake identities carries severe penalties under R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act)?

How can we protect ourselves from scammers? Here are key tips to stay safe:

🔍 Verify the seller's account before making any payments.
🛑 Don't fall for unrealistically low prices. If it's too good to be true, it's likely a scam!
📜 Protect your sensitive personal data at all times.

📞 Need legal guidance regarding an online scam or data breach? Message us directly or email us at [email protected].

03/08/2026

06/07/2026

For the information and guidance of the public, please find below the official contact details of our office.

Thank you.

23/06/2026

Suvivorship benefits of deceased GSIS members who served 𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝟑 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 may now favor 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 under this new ruling which finally settled the issue of their entitlement thereto.

The (SC) has ruled that the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) exceeded its authority when it issued a rule that excluded secondary beneficiaries from receiving survivorship benefits of deceased members who had at least three but less than 15 years of service.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division declared Section 24.2.2 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 (𝘐𝘙𝘙) of Republic Act No. 8291, or 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997 (𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵), 𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 or beyond the GSIS’ rule-making authority.

As a result, the GSIS is barred from enforcing the provision to the extent that it conflicts with Section 21(c) of the law.

The case arose from the application of Petronilo B. Laroco (Laroco) for survivorship benefits following the death of his daughter, Cristie. She was a public school teacher with 13 years of government service and had paid GSIS premiums for 12 years. She died single and had no children.

The GSIS rejected the application. Under Section 24.2 of the IRR, Laroco was ineligible for survivorship benefits because he was not a primary beneficiary.

The GSIS held that secondary beneficiaries qualify for survivorship only if the deceased member had served at least 15 years in the government. Since Cristie had only 13 years of service, only her primary beneficiaries—such as her spouse or children—were entitled to survivorship benefits.

Ruling in Laroco’s favor, the SC pointed out that Section 24.2.2 of the IRR conflicts with the law because it adds a new requirement—limiting survivorship benefits for secondary beneficiaries only to cases where the deceased member served at least 15 years.

Under the 𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵, a secondary beneficiary is entitled to survivorship benefits if: (1) there is no primary beneficiary; (2) the secondary beneficiary meets the dependency requisites under the law; (3) the member was in government service at the time of their death; and (4) the member has rendered at least three years of service.

The SC stressed that although the GSIS had good intentions to address the “unequal situation” under the law, it cannot simply change the 𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵 through a mere administrative issuance.

The three-year government service requirement for survivorship benefit under Section 21 might be, as argued by the GSIS, unfair and disadvantageous to other members who are required to render at least 15 years of service before qualifying for pension, but this is what is provided in the law.

The SC remanded the case to the GSIS Committee on Claims for the computation of the benefits payable to Laroco.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167839.

Read the full text of the Decision at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165811.

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