Ejas Salisip Law Office

Ejas Salisip Law Office Attorneys at Law ▪︎ Notaries Public
MNJ 3 Bldg, Ground Flr, Poblacion, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, 7001

01/06/2025

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/.

06/05/2025

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/.

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/.

Navigate your way to the Ejas Salisip Barcenas Law Office hassle-free with this handy map guide.
03/05/2024

Navigate your way to the Ejas Salisip Barcenas Law Office hassle-free with this handy map guide.

25/03/2024

SC: LGU Legal Officers May Not Represent Local Government Officials Before the Ombudsman |

Due to conflict of interest, legal officers of local government units (LGUs) may not represent public officials of the LGUs they are serving in cases filed against such officials before the Ombudsman.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. as it reprimanded a provincial legal officer for unauthorized practice of law, in violation of the then Code of Professional Responsibility.

Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, public officials and employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.

The Court found that there is no proof that the lawyer possessed an authority to practice law outside of his duties as provincial legal officer. Thus, his act of representing Gov. Degamo in the criminal and administrative cases against the latter constitutes unauthorized practice of law.

The lawyer’s argument that he was simply performing his official duties as provincial legal officer was also rejected by the Court, stressing its ruling in the 2016 case of Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez, that a basic conflict of interest exists when a government lawyer represents another public official before the Ombudsman.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-lgu-legal-officers-may-not-represent-local-government-officials-before-the-ombudsman/. Read A.C. No. 13219 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13219-in-re-g-r-nos-226935-228238-and-228325-vs-atty-richard-r-enojo/.

EJAS SALISIP BARCENAS LAW OFFICE: Relaunching and Blessing last February 28, 2024.To everyone who came and celebrated wi...
11/03/2024

EJAS SALISIP BARCENAS LAW OFFICE: Relaunching and Blessing last February 28, 2024.

To everyone who came and celebrated with us, thank you so much for your presence!

To those who wish to visit us for any legal concern we are located at Ground Floor, MNJ 3 Bldg, Poblacion, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. See you!

Happy birthday, Atty. Rona Jade C. Ejas-Salisip!Our dear lady lawyer, the one that started it all and who puts her heart...
22/02/2024

Happy birthday, Atty. Rona Jade C. Ejas-Salisip!

Our dear lady lawyer, the one that started it all and who puts her heart and devotion into every case, is celebrating her natal day today.

May your passion for justice and and the law continue to fuel your success.

Wishing you a day as bright and inspiring as your leadership. We are fortunate to be led and mentored by you.

Love,
Your ESB Law Office family.

Today, one of our lady lawyers is celebrating her birthday. We wish Atty. Beth Kristel Barcenas the happiest birthday as...
21/02/2024

Today, one of our lady lawyers is celebrating her birthday.

We wish Atty. Beth Kristel Barcenas the happiest birthday as she turns a year wiser and brighter. May this day be the start of your year filled with accomplishments and endless joy.

Warmth,
Your ESB Law Office family.

Atty. NANELY C. EJAS
20/02/2024

Atty. NANELY C. EJAS

Atty. BETH KRISTEL M. BARCENAS
20/02/2024

Atty. BETH KRISTEL M. BARCENAS

Atty. RONA JADE C. EJAS-SALISIP
20/02/2024

Atty. RONA JADE C. EJAS-SALISIP

Address

Poblacion Ipil
Ipil
7001

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Ejas Salisip Law Office 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 Ejas Salisip Law Office:

Share