De Guzman Law Office and Notarial Services

03/10/2026

The has adopted the term "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮-𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘳" when referring to persons who have experienced sexual violence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division affirmed a man’s conviction for the r**e of a 12-year-old child.

The minor testified that while everyone was asleep, the accused, who was the common-law spouse of the minor’s mother, dragged the child outside the residence of her uncle, r**ed her, pointed a knife at her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident.

She told her uncle and aunt that the accused had been sexually abusing her since she was nine years old. She did not report it earlier because she feared his threats.

The SC found all the elements of r**e present and the accused positively identified as the ra**st. In addition to the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢 or up to 40 years in prison, the SC ordered the man to pay the victim-survivor PHP 450,000 in civil indemnity and damages.

The SC clarified its terminology in cases involving sexual violence. Rather than using the term "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮," it adopted "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮-𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘳" to acknowledge both the harm caused by the crime and the strength victims show in enduring and recovering from such violence.

As part of the government’s efforts to provide comprehensive support for victim-survivors, the SC also directed the Department of Social Welfare and Development to refer the minor to the proper r**e crisis center for assistance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174013.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168013.

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

02/10/2026

The has voided a couple’s marriage after finding that they falsely claimed five years of cohabitation to avoid obtaining a marriage license.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition of the Republic of the Philippines which sought to declare a couple’s marriage valid despite the absence of a marriage license.

The couple had lived together as husband and wife since December 2003. In 2006, the husband left for Israel to work and returned in 2009 to marry his wife. To facilitate their marriage without the required license, the couple executed an 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, claiming they had lived together for six years and were thus exempt from the marriage license requirement under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In 2013, the husband filed a petition to declare the marriage void, arguing the 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 they executed was false because he was in Israel for most of the period it covered.

The SC explained that while Article 3(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 provides that one of the formal requisites of a marriage is a valid marriage license, Article 34 of the same provides an exception to this requirement for couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal impediment to marry each other.

Citing the 2000 case of 𝘕𝘪ñ𝘢𝘭 𝘷. 𝘉𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘨, the SC stressed that the five-year cohabitation period is counted back from the marriage date. The couple must have lived together continuously and exclusively, without interruption or a third party.

In this case, the SC said that the testimony of the husband showed the couple had not lived together continuously for five years, making their 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to the solemnizing officer false. His testimony also supported the finding that they failed to meet the five-year requirement.

The SC found that from 2001 to 2004, before the husband left for Israel, they lived separately and only occasionally shared a rented room with relatives. From 2005 to 2009, while the husband was in Israel, there was no evidence that they presented themselves as spouses or that he intended to return to the Philippines to live with his wife.

The SC thus ruled that there was not enough evidence to prove that the couple continuously and exclusively cohabited as husband and wife for a period of five years immediately preceding the celebration of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174170.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168047.

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

02/10/2026

Nagpasya ang na ang pagsuko sa karapatan sa minanang ari-arian ay maaaring ituring na isang donasyon kung nagpapakita ito ng layuning magbigay ng donasyon at natutugunan ang mga legal na kinakailangan.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, isinantabi ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang pinagsamang mga petisyon ni Felix G. Cruz at pinagtibay nito ang mga desisyon ng Court of Appeals (CA) na kumikilala sa bisa ng paglilipat ng dalawang minanang ari-arian nina Luis at Rosita Cruz sa kanilang mga anak na sina Robin at Osias.

Nag-ugat ang kaso sa dalawang lupang naiwan ni Judy Cruz na namatay na dalaga at walang iniwang testamento. Naiwan niya ang kanyang mga magulang na sina Luis at Rosita at limang kapatid, kabilang sina Felix, Robin, at Osias.

Matapos mamatay si Judy, magkahiwalay na pumirma sina Luis at Rosita sa notarized na Waivers of Rights kung saan isinuko nila ang kanilang mga karapatan sa mga ari-arian pabor kina Robin at Osias.

Kalaunan, lumagda sina Robin at Osias sa isang Extrajudicial Partition and Settlement of Estate at ipinarehistro sa kanilang mga pangalan ang mga ari-arian.

Pumirma rin sina Felix at dalawa pa nilang kapatid na sina Doris at Henry sa mga waiver kung saan isinuko nila ang anumang interes nila sa mga ari-arian. Si Felix, na abogado ng pamilya, ang naghanda ng mga dokumentong ito.

Matapos mamatay ang kanilang nanay, hiniling ni Felix na ipawalang-bisa ang paglilipat ng mga ari-arian at kanselahin ang mga titulo na nakapangalan kina Robin at Osias. Iginiit ni Felix na walang bisa ang paglilipat at dapat ay nanatiling bahagi ng ari-arian ng ina nilang si Rosita ang mga lupa kung saan may karapatan siyang manahin bilang isa sa mga tagapagmana.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang mga desisyon ng trial court at Court of Appeals na nagsantabi sa reklamo ni Felix at kumikilala sa Waivers of Rights na pinirmahan nina Luis at Rosita bilang mga mabisang donasyon pabor kina Robin at Osias.

Ipinaliwanag nito na nang mamatay si Judy, awtomatikong napunta sa kanyang mga magulang bilang mga legal na tagapagmana ang pagmamay-ari ng kanyang mga ari-arian.

Bagama’t tinawag na Waivers of Rights ang mga dokumentong nilagdaan nila, napag-alaman ng Korte Suprema na ang tunay na layunin nina Luis at Rosita ay i-donate ang mga ari-arian kina Robin at Osias.

Sa ilalim ng Article 749 ng Civil Code, kinakailangan ang mga sumusunod para maging mabisa ang donasyon ng real property: (1) mababawasan ang ari-arian ng donor; (2) magkakaroon ng katumbas na pagtaas sa ari-arian ng donee; (3) may layuning mag-donate; (4) maisagawa ang donasyon sa isang pampublikong dokumento; at (5) tanggapin ito ng donee. Kung nakasaad ang pagtanggap sa isang hiwalay na dokumento, dapat itong ipaalam sa donor.

Natugunan ang mga kinakailangang ito sa kasong ito. Isinuko nina Luis at Rosita ang kanilang pagmamay-ari sa mga ari-arian pabor kina Robin at Osias sa pamamagitan ng mga notarized na dokumentong hayagang nagbibigay ng pahintulot para sa paglilipat ng mga ito.

Samantala, tinanggap nina Robin at Osias ang donasyon nang isagawa nila ang Extrajudicial Partition and Settlement at ipinarehistro sa kanilang mga pangalan ang mga ari-arian. Ipinaalam nila kina Luis at Rosita ang kanilang pagtanggap sa pamamagitan ng mga hakbang na ito.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174097.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168026.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

02/10/2026

The has ruled that waiving rights to inherited property may be considered a valid donation when it shows intent to donate and meets the legal requirements for a donation.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division denied the consolidated petitions filed by Felix G. Cruz and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) rulings upholding the transfer of two inherited properties by Luis and Rosita Cruz to their sons, Robin and Osias.

The case involved two parcels of land left by Judy Cruz, who died single and without a will. She was survived by her parents, Luis and Rosita, and five siblings, including Felix, Robin, and Osias.

After Judy’s death, Luis and Rosita executed separate notarized 𝘞𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 over the properties in favor of Robin and Osias, who later executed an 𝘌𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 and registered the properties in their names.

Felix and his two other siblings, Doris and Henry, also executed waivers giving up any interest in the properties. Felix, who was the family lawyer, prepared these documents.

After their mother died, Felix sought to nullify the transfer of the properties and cancel the titles of Robin and Osias. Felix argued that the transfer was invalid and that the properties should have remained part of their mother’s estate, to which he was entitled to inherit as one of the heirs.

The SC upheld the ruling of the trial court and the CA dismissing Felix’s complaint and holding that the Waivers of Rights executed by Luis and Rosita constituted valid donations in favor of Robin and Osias.

The SC explained that when Judy died, ownership of her properties immediately passed to her parents as her legal heirs. Luis and Rosita therefore had the right to dispose of the properties.

Although the documents they executed were called 𝘞𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴, the SC found that Luis and Rosita intended to donate the properties to Robin and Osias.

Under Article 749 of the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a valid donation of real property requires: (1) a decrease in the donor’s property; (2) a corresponding increase in the donee’s property; (3) intent to donate; (4) ex*****on of the donation in a public document; and (5) acceptance by the donee. If the acceptance is in a separate document, the donor must be informed.

These requirements were met in this case. Luis and Rosita gave up their ownership of the properties in favor of Robin and Osias through notarized documents that expressly authorized the transfer. Robin and Osias, in turn, accepted the donation by executing the 𝘌𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 and registering the properties in their names. Their actions were made known to Luis and Rosita.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174097.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168026.

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

01/10/2026

29/09/2026

Remedial Law

29/09/2026

Commercial Law

29/09/2026

Non-Remittance of Union Dues Under a CBA Check-Off Provision as Unfair Labor Practice (Bar, 2026)

28/09/2026

Pinagtibay ng ang paggamit ng terminong victim-survivor sa pagtukoy sa mga taong nakaranas ng seksuwal na karahasan.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, pinagtibay ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na guilty sa isang lalaki dahil sa panggagahasa sa isang 12-anyos na bata.

Tumestigo ang menor de edad na habang natutulog ang lahat, kinaladkad siya ng akusado palabas ng tirahan ng kanyang tiyuhin. Ang akusado, na kinakasama ng kanyang ina, ay pinagsamantalahan siya, tinutukan ng kutsilyo, at nagbantang papatayin kung sasabihin niya kaninuman ang nangyari.

Nagsumbong ang biktima sa kanyang tiyuhin at tiyahin na inaabuso siya ng akusado mula noong siya ay siyam na taong gulang pa lamang. Hindi niya ito agad isinumbong dahil natatakot siya sa mga banta ng akusado.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na guilty matapos nitong matukoy na napatunayan ang lahat ng elemento ng panggagahasa at positibong nakilala ng victim-survivor ang akusado bilang nanggahasa sa kanya. Bukod sa parusang reclusion perpetua o hanggang 40 taong pagkakakulong, inatasan ang lalaki na magbayad sa victim-survivor ng PHP 450,000 bilang civil indemnity at danyos.

Nilinaw din ng Korte ang terminolohiyang ginagamit sa mga kasong may kinalaman sa seksuwal na karahasan. Sa halip na gamitin ang terminong “victim,” pinagtibay nito ang paggamit ng “victim-survivor” para kilalanin kapwa ang pinsalang dulot ng krimen at ang katatagang ipinakikita ng mga nakaligtas dito sa pagharap at pagbangon mula sa naturang karahasan.

Bilang bahagi ng mga pagsisikap ng pamahalaan na magbigay ng komprehensibong suporta sa mga victim-survivor, inatasan din ng Korte Suprema ang Department of Social Welfare and Development na i-refer ang menor de edad sa angkop na r**e crisis center.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174013.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168013.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.