https://www.facebook.com/110139674964435/

Atty. MJ Nequinto, RM 106 ICCEMPC BLDG. BONIFACIO Drive, Iloilo City (2026)

06/08/2025

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

07/04/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man of violation of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act), citing the failure of his wife to allege that she suffered mental and emotional anguish when she found out that the accused cohabited with another woman and impregnated the same.

In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC Second Division granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by the accused and reversed his criminal conviction for violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262, or the Anti-VAWC Act.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by his wife, who alleged that her husband was living together with his mistress and the two had a child. When she discovered the infidelity of her husband, she narrated how she felt pain to the extent that she wanted to commit su***de. For his part, the husband denied living with his mistress but acknowledged that he had a one-night stand with her. He also admitted that he had a child with her, whom he supports financially.

The RTC convicted the accused for violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act. The lower court meted out the penalty of 4-8 years imprisonment and a fine of Php100,000. The CA affirmed the said conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution was able to prove that the accused caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to his wife by having extramarital affairs with another woman with whom he had a child. This paved the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting the accused, the SC ruled that the complaint filed by his wife failed to allege that she suffered mental and emotional anguish due to the act of cohabitating with his paramour and his failure to provide support to their two children.

“Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i), just like mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim, as such experiences are personal to the party,” the SC said.

It noted that the prosecution conflated the third and fourth elements of Section 5(i) RA 9262, adding that the act of the accused in leaving the victim to cohabitate with his mistress and failure to provide support to their two children cannot be considered the reason why the victim suffered mental or emotional anguish.

“These acts are not considered by law as psychological abuse or violence and to qualify as an offense under Republic Act No. 9262 when there is no allegation that it caused a woman or her child/children to suffer from mental or emotional anguish. To reiterate, as an element of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, psychological abuse or violence is the means employed by the offender to cause mental or emotional anguish to the victim,” the SC added.

The high court also noted that convicting the accused of the crime charged would violate his constitutional rights to be fully informed of the complaints against him, emphasizing that there must be an allegation in the complaint that the acts imputed against him caused mental or emotional anguish to his wife or her children.

“As for equating ‘mental and emotional anguish" to ‘damage and prejudice," this Court cannot countenance the same. The crime charged specifically provides the kind of damage that ought to have been suffered by the victim, i.e., mental or emotional anguish. An allegation that the victim suffered "damage and prejudice" is too general to satisfy the degree of specificity required by law and enable ###260547 to suitably prepare his defenses,” the SC concluded.

07/03/2025

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

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

18/04/2022

Thank you SNCS family 💕💛❤🎉

Address

RM 106 ICCEMPC BLDG. BONIFACIO Drive
Iloilo City
5000

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Atty. MJ Nequinto posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Atty. MJ Nequinto:

Atty. MJ Nequinto