Vafcoo Law Firm

19/08/2025

29/07/2025

30/06/2025

The has reiterated that a victim’s admission of being in a relationship with her abuser does not imply consent to s*x. Clear and convincing evidence of consent is still required.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of accused Jhopet Hernandez Toralde for r**e of a 14-year old girl.

In 2017, Toralde showed up at the victim’s house unannounced and forced her to have s*x, threatening to show her family a video of them kissing if she refused. Out of fear, the victim gave in. She then reported the incident to the police.

During trial, the defense claimed that Toralde did not force the victim to have s*xual in*******se as he and the victim were in a romantic relationship—a defense known as the “𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆.”

The SC, however, rejected Toralde’s sweetheart defense and declared him guilty of r**e under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, citing that all elements of the crime were present, including the use of threats and intimidation to force s*xual in*******se.

The SC rejected Toralde’s sweetheart defense, affirming that being in a relationship does not grant the right to force s*x. The SC stressed that proving a romantic relationship is not enough—there must be clear evidence of consent.

Toralde was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢, or a maximum of 40 years in prison, and ordered to pay the victim PHP 225,000 in damages.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/nvpvv9fm.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/6tzma4tx

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

30/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yeapyzcd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

06/05/2025

𝗣𝗔𝗚𝗣𝗔𝗞𝗔𝗕𝗔𝗡𝗔: 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗘𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 & 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱.

May 03, 2025 | We extend our heartfelt gratitude to everyone who participated in Pagpakabana, a meaningful collaboration between Ateneo de Davao Mindanawon Initiatives of Cultural Dialogue, University of Southeastern Philippines Law School Alumni Association, and VAFCOO Law Firm.

Through voter's education and free legal consultations, we were able to engage communities, raise awareness, and offer support in upholding legal rights.

Genuine change begins with informed and empowered citizens. Padayon ta!

06/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the child’s best interest.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division granted the petition filed by Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and his parents challenging a Court of Appeals ruling which upheld the validity of a compromise agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena Cabrillos, the mother of his child.

The SC sent the case back to the Family Court for determination of parental custody. It also gave custody to petitioners Jeffrey and his parents, who have actual care of the child, while the case remains pending.

Jeffrey and Sheena had a child in 2013. The couple eventually separated, with Sheena moving with their child to her parents’ home, and with Jeffrey exercising custody over the latter during long vacations.

In 2020, the child’s visit to Jeffrey was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown, with Jeffrey refusing to return the child to Sheena even after restrictions were lifted. Sheena thus filed a complaint with the police and a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the Family Court.

The Family Court issued the writ and terminated the case. It adopted in an order the agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena that the latter would have custody of the child by July 2021. The Court of Appeals upheld this agreement as a provisional custody arrangement.

Petitioners then argued before the SC that the mere agreement between the parents before trial cannot determine the issue of a child’s custody.

Ruling in petitioners’ favor, the SC stressed that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child’s appearance in court.

Trial courts must consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if:

- the petitioner has a legal right to custody;
- the child is being kept from them by the other party; and
- being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.

In this case, the SC found that the Family Court failed to evaluate these factors, relying solely on the parents’ agreement without conducting a case study or assessing parental fitness. It added that compromise agreements between parents as to a child’s custody are frowned upon. Courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the child’s rights and welfare are protected.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3p6v2cc2.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/52yna5zv.

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

02/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that while notarized documents are presumed authentic, they will be invalidated if proven to be fake.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division cleared Gil Chua (Chua) of liability for Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc.’s (Interbrand) unpaid PHP 150 million loan from the Bank of Commerce (Bank).

The loan was secured by promissory notes and notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSAs) signed by several of Interbrand’s officers. Chua was listed as one of the sureties, but unlike the other signatories, he was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the company. When Interbrand failed to pay the loans, the Bank sued the company and all the sureties.

Chua denied any involvement, saying he never signed a CSA nor appeared before a notary public. The Bank, however, insisted that the CSA, as a notarized document, is presumed valid.

Emphasizing that notarization does not cure a forged or fabricated document, the SC ruled that the notarized CAS was questionable and that Chua was not bound by it.

The SC found that Chua successfully challenged the validity of the CSA. He consistently denied signing the document or appearing before a notary. He held no position or interest in Interbrand, and the Bank had no specimen of his signature to verify the CSA.

Additionally, his CSA and another were allegedly signed on the same day in far-apart locations but had identical witnesses, which raised doubts as to their authenticity. The notary public who supposedly notarized the CSA was also never presented in court.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zz7wmbd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/5t4dxh45.

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

02/05/2025

The (SC) has reaffirmed that testimonies from a spouse’s family and friends can help prove psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division declared the marriage of Jeffery A. Green (Jeffery) and Rowena Manlutac Green (Rowena) null and void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity.

Jeffery filed a petition to nullify their marriage, claiming that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated. As evidence, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

According to the said report, Rowena frequently mismanaged their finances, accumulating debts of up to PHP 4 million. She was also accused of cheating on Jeffery and lying about the paternity of their child.

Ruling that Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, the SC emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse. This approach helps avoid potential bias in favor of the spouse who filed the petition.

The SC also reiterated that so long as the totality of the evidence can prove a spouse’s psychological incapacity at the time the marriage was celebrated, the marriage can be nullified under Article 36 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/36crdfhb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3c3t54b7.

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

30/04/2025

𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐠𝐲. 𝐓𝐮𝐧𝐠𝐤𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧

29 April 2025 — The community of Brgy. Tungkalan recently took part in a successful Voter’s Education Program and Free Legal Consultation, spearheaded by the Mindanawon Initiatives for Cultural Dialogue of Ateneo de Davao University, in collaboration with VAFCOO Law Firm.

Held as part of the ongoing effort to promote responsible and informed participation in the electoral process, Atty. Eufemia Aguelo-Faller led a non-partisan informative discussion encouraging critical thinking and active participation in shaping transparent and accountable governance.

Beyond the educational session, attendees were also given the opportunity to avail themselves of free one-on-one legal consultations from VAFCOO Law Firm’s legal team, addressing a range of personal and community concerns, underscoring the firm’s commitment to accessible legal services.

The organizers extend their sincere appreciation to the residents of Brgy. Tungkalan for their active engagement and steadfast commitment to informed civic participation.

14/04/2025

READ : Ipinababatid ng Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) na maaari nang magpa-Apostille ng mga sumusunod na dokumento mula sa Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) online at hindi na kinakailangang magtungo sa tanggapan ng DFA upang magsumite ng mga kinakailangang dokumento.

✅ Birth Certificate
✅ Marriage Certificate
✅ Advisory on Marriage
✅ Certificate of No Marriage Record (CENOMAR)

Read full advisory 👉🏻 https://tinyurl.com/38yn2f26