Atty. Bianca Pastor

Atty. Bianca Pastor Legal and Notarial Services

09/02/2026

While the country has yet to pass its own divorce law, that doesn't mean a divorce granted abroad is automatically invalid.

Learn more in the comments.

26/06/2025

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/.

23/06/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a co-owner must give written notice to the other co-owners before selling their share of a property. However, if the other co-owners already knew about the sale and failed to exercise their right to buy the share within 30 days, the written notice is no longer required.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by siblings Antonio Azurin, Jr. (Antonio) and Rafael Azurin (Rafael) to buy back a parcel of land registered in the name of Carlito Chua (Chua).

Antonio and Rafael were in possession of a parcel of land which they co-owned with their aunt Adelaida. Adelaida later sold to Chua her portion, which was officially registered in Chua’s name after it was surveyed and divided.

Years later, Antonio and Rafael attempted to buy back the land from Chua by filing a complaint for legal redemption before the trial court. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the complaint, on the ground that the case was filed years after the sale and well beyond the 30-day period allowed by the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Antonio and Rafael appealed to the SC, but the SC denied their appeal.

The SC said that under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a co-owner intending to sell their share to a third party must notify the other co-owners in writing about the sale. The other co-owners then have 30 days from receipt of the written notice to redeem or buy back the portion sold. If they fail to do so within the period, they lose the right to redeem the sold portion.

The SC, however, added that the requirement of written notice can be waived if (1) unusual circumstances have made the co-owners aware of the sale, and (2) the co-owners did not take action or were negligent in their right to redeem the property, a situation referred to in law as laches.

In this case, the SC found that Antonio and Rafael were aware of the sale. They were in actual possession of the land and, therefore, were informed about the survey conducted on it. Additionally, they received Chua’s legal complaint to recover possession.

However, they waited more than six years before trying to redeem the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/68yxczhw.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/35tpwuye.

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

08/10/2024

SC issues TRO vs. COMELEC reso allowing public appointive official to stay in office after being named party-list nominee

The Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of a COMELEC resolution which allows public appointive officials to continue holding office even after being nominated as a party-list representative.

The TRO is directed at section 11 of COMELEC Resolution No. 11045.

The Court said that all parties are required to observe the status quo that public appointive officials are deemed resigned upon filing their certificate of candidacy.

The petition was filed by election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal.

COMELEC is required to comment on the petition within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice.

A copy of the available pleadings may be downloaded from the Public Pleadings section of the Supreme Court website at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/public-pleadings/.

Read the press briefer at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/press-briefer-10-01-2024/

08/10/2024

The Supreme Court has emphasized that simply violating ordinances and regulations is not enough to justify a valid warrantless search and seizure, especially when the penalty does not involve imprisonment.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Supreme Court's Second Division acquitted Angelito Ridon of illegal possession of a firearm. The Court found the firearm seized from him inadmissible because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure.

Searches and seizures without a warrant may be allowed if they are part of a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. However, a lawful arrest must first be conducted before a warrantless search and seizure can be done.

In the present case, the police officers' basis for pursuing Ridon was his violation of traffic rules for entering a one-way street.

A traffic violation, however, does not call for an arrest but merely the confiscation of the driver’s license. Hence, regardless of Ridon’s guilt in entering the one-way street, he was not under arrest when the police officers pursued him.

As there was no valid arrest, the warrantless search that followed was also not valid.

Read the full press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-violation-of-ordinance-not-enough-to-justify-a-warrantless-search/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/252396-angelito-ridon-y-guevarra-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

08/10/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that demotion, verbal abuse, and indifferent behavior by an employer that forces an employee to resign constitute constructive illegal dismissal.

Constructive dismissal happens when an employer creates such unbearable working conditions that the employee feels forced to resign.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, stressed that actions demonstrating extreme dislike and hostile behavior, such as demotion, uttering insulting words, and apathetic behavior toward an employee, constitute constructive illegal dismissal when such actions cause the employment conditions to be so unbearable that there is no other choice but to resign.

The Court held that the standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt forced to give up their employment under the circumstances.

While the Court said that strong words may be exchanged in the workplace where there are bound to be disagreements, these should not degrade the dignity of employees to avoid a hostile work environment.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-employers-insulting-words-hostile-behavior-toward-an-employee-constitute-constructive-dismissal/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254465-jonathan-dy-chua-bartolome-vs-toyota-quezon-avenue-inc-lincoln-t-lim-esteban-dela-paz-jr-josefina-de-jesus-and-pauline-bacaling/

Address

4th Floor Polandy Building Brgy. 10 San Jose
Laoag City
2900

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Atty. Bianca Pastor 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. Bianca Pastor:

Shortcuts

Share

Category