KPL Legal Services

21/09/2026

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito, a member of the Family Law and Civil Law Departments of the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses parental compromise agreements and the best interest of the child in custody cases in 𝐄𝐩𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐝𝐞 𝟏𝟑𝟓: 𝐂𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐲, 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝. A law professor and Bar reviewer, Justice San Gaspar-Gito is also a member of both the Court of Appeals Committee on Rules and the Supreme Court Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns.

· 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦, 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵?
· 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

LISTEN to the FULL episode of this Podcast on

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3NGespHcVYAKosRgbBNz7A?si=ji3KDek2Q2a5dYON4QD4xw

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000790489738

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1C5WN8JZ5m/

YouTube: https://youtu.be/8QCsS9NIkb8

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

14/09/2026

09/09/2026

Marital infidelity is not just a moral breakdown—it can also be a criminal offense.

The story began when the wife discovered a text message on her husband's phone from his mistress stating, "AYAW KO [NA]NG MAGING KABIT".

The next day, the husband walked out on his family.

While living apart, he moved in with his mistress, fathered two children, and openly posted about their life on social media.

Left behind, his legal wife fell into a severe, long-term depression, eventually diagnosed by doctors as dysthymia (chronic depression).

When she took him to court for violating the Anti-VAWC Act (R.A. No. 9262), the trial court initially acquitted him, claiming that because they were already separated, his actions couldn't legally count as abusing her anymore.

But the Supreme Court stepped in with a definitive reality check.

The Court ruled that physical separation does not give anyone a free pass to commit psychological violence. Openly flaunting an affair while leaving a legal spouse to deal with the public humiliation and emotional fallout is a continuous crime.

A marriage can experience a physical separation, but the legal duty to avoid causing deep psychological trauma remains fully intact.

📚 ### v. People of the Philippines and AAA (G.R. No. 232190)

🖋️ Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier

24/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

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

24/07/2026

26/06/2026

The (SC) has ruled that the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) exceeded its authority when it issued a rule that excluded secondary beneficiaries from receiving survivorship benefits of deceased members who had at least three but less than 15 years of service.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division declared Section 24.2.2 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 (𝘐𝘙𝘙) of Republic Act No. 8291, or 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997 (𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵), 𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 or beyond the GSIS’ rule-making authority.

As a result, the GSIS is barred from enforcing the provision to the extent that it conflicts with Section 21(c) of the law.

The case arose from the application of Petronilo B. Laroco (Laroco) for survivorship benefits following the death of his daughter, Cristie. She was a public school teacher with 13 years of government service and had paid GSIS premiums for 12 years. She died single and had no children.

The GSIS rejected the application. Under Section 24.2 of the IRR, Laroco was ineligible for survivorship benefits because he was not a primary beneficiary.

The GSIS held that secondary beneficiaries qualify for survivorship only if the deceased member had served at least 15 years in the government. Since Cristie had only 13 years of service, only her primary beneficiaries—such as her spouse or children—were entitled to survivorship benefits.

Ruling in Laroco’s favor, the SC pointed out that Section 24.2.2 of the IRR conflicts with the law because it adds a new requirement—limiting survivorship benefits for secondary beneficiaries only to cases where the deceased member served at least 15 years.

Under the 𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵, a secondary beneficiary is entitled to survivorship benefits if: (1) there is no primary beneficiary; (2) the secondary beneficiary meets the dependency requisites under the law; (3) the member was in government service at the time of their death; and (4) the member has rendered at least three years of service.

The SC stressed that although the GSIS had good intentions to address the “unequal situation” under the law, it cannot simply change the 𝘎𝘚𝘐𝘚 𝘈𝘤𝘵 through a mere administrative issuance.

The three-year government service requirement for survivorship benefit under Section 21 might be, as argued by the GSIS, unfair and disadvantageous to other members who are required to render at least 15 years of service before qualifying for pension, but this is what is provided in the law.

The SC remanded the case to the GSIS Committee on Claims for the computation of the benefits payable to Laroco.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167839.

Read the full text of the Decision at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165811.

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

08/04/2026

Please be informed that our office will be closed tomorrow, 09 April 2026. Regular operations will resume on 10 April 2026, Friday.

Thank you.

07/04/2026

06/04/2026

Atty. Jose Maria G. Hofileña, Member of the Commercial Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, and Dean of the School of Law of the Ateneo de Manila University, discusses insurance in Episode 99: When Insurance Claims are Denied.

What are the legal consequences if an insurer fails to promptly point out defects in an insured’s proof of loss? If a stolen vehicle is recovered, does the insured owner still have the right to full payment under an insurance policy?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4zAprA6Pprxsogsfhaobnu?si=B1bamXMbSmSBJvCSsoDztA

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/episode-99-when-insurance-claims-are-denied/id1852172756?i=1000741967507

YouTube: https://youtu.be/nP8xhKatjPo

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CnxG7ophj/

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

30/03/2026

📣 Office Advisory – Holy Week Schedule

Please be informed that KPL Legal Services will observe the following office schedule for the Holy Week:

🗓 April 1, 2026 (Wednesday): 8:00 AM – 12:00 NN only
🗓 April 2, 2026 (Maundy Thursday): CLOSED
🗓 April 3, 2026 (Good Friday): CLOSED

Regular office operations will resume on Monday, April 6, 2026.

For urgent concerns, you may send us a message here on our page and we will respond as soon as possible.

Thank you and have a safe and meaningful Holy Week. 🙏