Lim Law- GenSan

10/02/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division granted a woman’s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

22/10/2025

26/05/2025

𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐲𝐞𝐫: 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒚. 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒆𝒏𝒚 𝑺𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒐 𝑳𝒊𝒎 ⚖️

Private Litigation Lawyer at Lim Law Office, handling criminal, civil, and administrative cases. She also serves as in-house counsel for various business establishments and consultancy firms in General Santos City.

Atty. Lim earned her Juris Doctor degree from Mindanao State University College of Law in 2022 and successfully passed the November 2022 Bar Exams.

Mentored by respected names in the legal field, Atty. Jong Gonzalez and Retired Judge Orly Oco, she carries forward a legacy rooted in service and a strong commitment to justice.

With dedication, integrity, and a passion for justice, Atty. Lim is here to serve.

Lim Law Office | Your Legal Ally in General Santos City

Visit us: 2nd Floor, Ritz Biz Hub, South Osmeña Street, General Santos

25/05/2025

📍Visit us: 2nd Floor, Ritz Biz Hub, South Osmeña Street, General Santos City

21/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that the children remain legitimate even if their parents’ marriage is later declared null and void due to psychological incapacity.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division modified the ruling of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that declared a child illegitimate following the nullity of her parents’ marriage.

The child was born several months before the couple got married. During the marriage, the wife experienced physical, emotional, and verbal abuse from her husband, who himself struggled with alcohol addiction, gambling, and infidelity.

This prompted the wife to file a petition to nullify their marriage, which the RTC granted, declaring the marriage void due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

However, the RTC also declared their child illegitimate since she was born before their marriage, and her birth certificate did not show she had been legitimated.

The SC affirmed that the marriage was void, but ruled that the child remains legitimate.

The general rule is that when a marriage is nullified, the child is considered illegitimate from the time they were conceived.

However, the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 allows exceptions, such as when the marriage is nullified due to psychological incapacity. This applies whether the child was born before or during the marriage.

The SC emphasized that once a child is legitimated under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, there is no legal basis for changing their status back to illegitimate. Allowing this would go against the law’s intent to protect the child’s best interests.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4yrkc82r.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/c673ywxs.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://tinyurl.com/mrx3swc7.

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

12/05/2025

𝑪𝒉𝒐𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝑾𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒚! 𝙀𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙨.

⏰Voting Hours: until 7:00 PM
🔍Precinct Finder: https://precinctfinder.comelec.gov.ph/voter_precinct

#𝙃𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣2025

11/05/2025

𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗖 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲!

Alam mo na ba kung saan ka boboto sa darating na halalan?

Hanapin ang iyong Polling Place para sa May 12, 2025 National and Local Elections gamit ang Precinct Finder sa https://precinctfinder.comelec.gov.ph.

Ihanda ang mga sumusunod na impormasyon: 𝘣𝘶𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘸 𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘯, 𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘶𝘨𝘢𝘳 𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰.

05/05/2025

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/.

28/04/2025

The (SC) has held a school civilly liable for negligence after a bullying incident led to the assault of a student during class.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division found that Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. (Mother Goose School) failed to address a punching incident involving three grade school students inside one of its classrooms.

When the victim’s parents raised the matter with the school, their complaints were ignored, prompting them to file formal requests for investigation. Mother Goose School ultimately concluded the incident was mere "teasing" or "rough play" and took no disciplinary action.

Dissatisfied, the parents filed a complaint for damages against the school, the teachers, and the other students’ fathers.

Ordering Mother Goose School to pay the victim’s parents PHP 650,000 in damages and attorney’s fees, the SC agreed with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Mother Goose School was grossly negligent in handling the punching incident.

The SC emphasized that schools have a contractual obligation to ensure a safe learning environment. It also reiterated that schools must maintain peace and order within their premises, and even outside campus during school activities. They may avoid liability only upon proof they exercised due diligence.

The SC found Mother Goose School negligent for its lack of proper protocols, failure to inform the victim’s parents promptly, and inaccuracies in its investigation.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/m86ufzwa.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/mparp5dp.

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

25/04/2025

LOOK | List of Evacuation Centers

To further enhance disaster preparedness, the Public Safety Office-City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Division, under the leadership of Dr. Agripino V. Dacera, Jr., LDRRMO IV, has submitted a comprehensive list of evacuation centers in the city. This proactive effort aims to ensure that every community is well-prepared in the event of a disaster.

Your safety is our top priority!

- - -
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE
📍 2/F GenSan Training Center, Roxas Avenue, General Santos City
📞 (083) 877-2479
📧 [email protected]
🔗 bit.ly/PSO-PACD

25/04/2025

Thursday, April 24, 2025
Be kind—every single day. You never know what someone’s carrying quietly in their heart. Don’t be the reason someone loses hope. Be the reason someone feels safe, seen, and reminded that the world still holds gentle people. 💛