Aposaga Law Office

12/11/2025

08/10/2025

The (SC) has nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charged on the unpaid bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrower’s consent.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s Special Third Division granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernandez, whose properties were foreclosed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) after they failed to pay a PHP 16-million loan.

Ang and Fernandez obtained a loan from UCPB. Based on the loan documents, however, UCPB was allowed to unilaterally adjust the interest rate every quarter based on market conditions.

When Ang and Fernandez failed to pay the total loan when it fell due, UCPB began to extrajudicially foreclose their properties.

Ang and Fernandez then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the foreclosure sale, claiming that because the bank had the sole power to set and increase the interest rate, the rate was unfair and invalid.

The SC initially agreed that the interest rate was invalid but still upheld the foreclosure sale, ruling that the borrowers remained in default.

Upon reconsideration, however, the SC ruled that if the interest rate was unconscionable or imposed unilaterally by the lender, then any foreclosure that follows is also invalid.

The Court emphasized that under the Civil Code, contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon. A contract that depends only on one party’s will is void.

In this case, the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB. Since the interest rate was invalid, the foreclosure of the properties was void.

The SC held that the borrowers should be given a chance to pay the loan at an interest rate agreed upon by both parties. Otherwise, they would be at the mercy of the lender and risk losing their property without a fair opportunity to settle their debt.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152735.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152719.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152726.

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

08/10/2025

The has approved the “2025 Transitory Rules on Electronic Filing and Service in the Supreme Court.”

The new rules will take effect on October 30, 2025, following their publication in the Official Gazette, in two newspapers of general circulation, and on the Supreme Court website.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 25-09-16-SC here:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25-09-16-sc-2025-transitory-rules-on-electronic-filing-and-service-in-the-supreme-court/

26/09/2025

25/08/2025

25/08/2025

To all our Filipino heroes, seen and unseen, we thank you. Maligayang Araw ng mga Bayani! 🇵🇭

13/08/2025

📣 IMPORTANT REMINDER TO PARENTS AND SCHOOLS 📣

In light of recent school bullying incidents, it's important to know that schools, administrators, and teachers may be held legally liable for any injuries or harm suffered by a child under their care.

⚖️ This responsibility extends to all authorized school activities — whether they happen inside the school grounds or outside (such as field trips, sports events, school-sanctioned programs, teacher-issued assignments, performance tasks, etc..).

This is based on the legal principle of 𝑽𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑳𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, where institutions can be held accountable for the actions (or inaction) of those under their authority.

👨‍👩‍👧 Parents, know your rights.
🏫 Schools & Teachers, uphold your duty of care.
Let’s work together to create a safe environment for every child. 🤍

𝗩𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀

𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀?

𝗬𝗘𝗦. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, school heads and teachers are liable for the tortious acts of their pupils while they remain in their custody, because they stand in loco parentis to their pupils and are thus called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. A student is deemed in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended.

However, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers shall be freed of liability arising from the tortious acts of their students if they can prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. As long as the defendant can show that he had taken the necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he can exonerate himself/herself from the liability imposed by Article 2180.

-Apolinario vs. Heirs of Francisco de los Santos G.R. No. 219686, 27 November 2024

04/07/2025

The (SC) has ruled that an acknowledgment receipt cannot be considered a contract of sale unless it clearly shows that the seller intends to transfer ownership of the property to the buyer.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the agreement between Virgilio B. Chavez and his fellow petitioners (Chavez family) on one hand, and Spouses Joselito and Adriana Gopez (spouses) on the other was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale.

The case involved two properties inherited by the Chavez family, which they agreed to sell to the Spouses Gopez for PHP 31.5 million. The spouses were required to pay PHP 5 million as downpayment and to prepare the necessary documents, including the contract to sell.

The spouses initially paid PHP 200,000, noted in an acknowledgment receipt as “earnest money.” This receipt was the only proof of their agreement.

Later, the Chavez family canceled the agreement, claiming that the spouses had not paid the full down payment and had delayed the paperwork. This led the Spouses Gopez to file a case to force the Chavez family to proceed with the sale.

Ruling that the transaction was a contract to sell, the SC explained that in such a contract, the seller does not agree to transfer ownership of the property just yet. The seller only commits to fulfilling their promise to sell the properties and transfer title to the buyer after an event, typically the full payment of the purchase price. If this does not happen, their obligation to sell does not arise, and the seller retains ownership of the property.

In contrast, a contract of sale clearly shows the seller's intent to transfer ownership to the buyer.

In this case, the acknowledgment receipt did not include any promise to transfer ownership. It only showed that the spouses needed to meet conditions: the payment of the purchase price and preparation of the contract to sell, deed of sale, and estate settlement.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4hvfm3ze.

Read the the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/msysydyb.

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

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

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

27/06/2025

𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬 𝗥𝗔𝗣𝗘

Crime of Statutory R**e under R.A No. 11648

𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲: R**E is committed by a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person, when the offended party is under sixteen (16) years of age or is demented.

𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: There shall be no criminal liability on the part of a person having carnal knowledge of another person under sixteen (16) years of age when the age difference between the parties is not more than three (3) years, and the sexual act in question is proven to be consensual, non-abusive*, and non-exploitative*.

𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: If the victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, this exception shall not apply.

Note:

𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 - Shall mean the absence of undue influence, intimidation, fraudulent machinations, coercion, threat, physical, sexual, psychological, or mental injury or maltreatment, either with intention or through neglect, during the conduct of sexual activities with the child victim.

𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲- Shall mean there is no actual or attempted act or acts of unfairly taking advantage of the child's
position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust during the conduct of sexual activities

05/06/2025

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that in drug cases, prosecutors must raise all their objections when an accused offers to plead guilty to a lesser crime. Any objections not raised are considered waived.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) ruling that found Rodulfo Ferraren Aquino (Aquino) guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002.

The SC also updated its 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢-𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 as set forth in the 2022 case of 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰, by adding the following guidelines:

1. If the prosecution objects to a plea bargaining motion but cites only some possible grounds, any other ground not raised is considered waived.

2. If the prosecution raises several objections, but the trial court addresses only one, the appellate court or the SC shall direct the trial court to resolve the remaining issues based on the Montierro guidelines and this case.

3. If the records before the appellate court or the SC are incomplete and it is unclear whether either of the above scenarios applies, the trial court shall be directed to rule again on the matter, applying the principles in 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰 and this case.

Aquino was charged with selling and possessing shabu. He asked the RTC to allow him to plead guilty to a lesser crime, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, for both charges. The prosecution agreed to the plea bargain for the possession charge but objected to the plea for the drug sale charge, saying it violated Department of Justice (DOJ) rules. The RTC, however, granted Aquino’s plea.

The SC, agreeing with the RTC, reiterated the 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰 ruling that courts may reject the prosecution’s objection to a plea bargain in drug cases if the only reason for the objection is that the plea violates rules, provided the plea follows the SC’s official plea bargaining framework.

However, the SC also clarified that courts do not have unlimited authority and cannot reject the prosecution’s objection if it is based on valid grounds, such as if the accused is not qualified for plea bargaining, or if the plea does not follow the SC’s approved guidelines.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/y627x9fk.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4pcu6ke3.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/5898sb24.

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

05/06/2025

𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁: 𝙂𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝗕𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗺𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲

𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀:

Nerrian Maningo-Malaki (Nerrian) and Francis D. Malaki, Sr. (Francis) were married under the religious rites of Iglesia ni Cristo where they begot two (2) children. Francis then left the family home for to find a job and later abandoned his family. Consequently, Nerrian discovered that Francis was cohabiting with Jacqueline Mae A. Salanatin (Jacqueline) and that the two eventually contracted marriage. Hence, Nerrian filed a complaint of bigamy against Jacqueline and Francis.

Francis and Jacqueline admitted that they got married while Francis marriage to Nerrian was subsisting. However, they claimed that they could not be penalized forbigamy since they converted to Islam prior to their marriage.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Francis and Jaqueline guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling.

𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲:

𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗝𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗺𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲?

𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴:

𝗬𝗘𝗦. According to the Supreme Court, a party to a civil marriage who converts to Islam and contracts another marriage, despite the first marriage’s subsistence, is guilty of bigamy. Likewise guilty is the spouse in the subsequent marriage. Conversion to Islam does not operate to exculpate them from criminal liability.
Further, a married Muslim cannot marry another. In exceptional cases, a married Muslim man may do so if ‘he can deal with them with equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic law.

Malaki vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 221075, November 15, 2021
Penned by: Justice Leonen