Atty. Vhiena May D. Estrellado Law Office

16/02/2026

𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗗𝗔𝗬 𝗔𝗟𝗘𝗥𝗧:

As per Presidential Proclamation No. 1006, s. 2025, February 17, 2026 (Tuesday), is declared as Additional Special Non-Working Day in observance of the Chinese New Year.

Estrellado Law office operations resumes February 18, 2026 (Wednesday).

05/01/2026

We have resumed regular business operations.
We are now open and ready to serve you.
Thank you for your continued support.

20/12/2025

ANNOUNCEMENT

Please be advised that our office will be closed from December 23, 2025 to January 2, 2026.

For any urgent and important matters, you may contact our page, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Regular operations will resume on January 5, 2026.

Thank you for your continued support.
Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

28/11/2025

FYI

30/10/2025

📣Announcement

09/10/2025

SUPREME COURT: UNFAIR INTEREST RATE CAN BE A GROUND TO INVALIDATE FORECLOSURE SALE

| The Supreme Court (SC) has nullified the foreclosure of several properties belonging to two borrowers after it found that the interest rate charged on a bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrowers’ consent.

In a 9-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the SC's Special Third Division granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernandez over their properties, which had been foreclosed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) after they defaulted on a P16 million loan.

The case arose from the loan agreement entered into by Ang and Fernandez from UCPB. The loan documents allowed UCPB 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 to recover the unpaid debt.

The two challenged the legality of the foreclosure sale before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that the bank's ability to unilaterally set and increase the interest rate was unfair and invalid. Initially, the RTC upheld the foreclosure sale but emphasized that the interest rate provisions were invalid because they were left entirely to the bank's discretion.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling and held that both the interest rate and the subsequent foreclosure sale were void. This prompted the UCPB to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

At first the highest bench had agreed that the interest rate itself was invalid but still upheld the foreclosure, maintaining that the borrowers remained in default.

However, upon reconsideration, the SC ruled that if the interest rate is unconscionable or imposed unilaterally by the lender, then any foreclosure that follows is also invalid. It cited the Civil Code, which provides that contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon, stating that a contract depending only on one party’s will is void.

“In the instant case, not only was there a finding, both by this Court and also by the courts below, that the interest rates being imposed were unilaterally imposed by petitioner, thus making it potestative or entirely dependent on petitioner's will,” the Supreme Court said.

“Being potestative, the principle of mutuality of contracts, found in Articles 1308 and 1309 of the Civil Code, could not have been present, making the provisions on interest void,” it added.

The high court explained that since the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB, the same was invalid, which meant the loan was not yet legally due.

“The mortgagor should be given a chance to pay their indebtedness at an interest rate clearly agreed upon by the parties; otherwise, they shall be at the mercy of their creditor, sending to loss their property without being afforded a fair opportunity to settle their indebtedness,” it stressed.

03/10/2025

25/09/2025

19/09/2025

THE COURT CANNOT FORCE A SPOUSE TO STAY IN A LOVELESS MARRIAGE—SUPREME COURT

| The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s “inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner,“ if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, could be deemed as evidence to prove psychological incapacity in marital obligations.

In a 16-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC's Second Division granted the petition of Ronald Boado to annul his marriage to his wife, Florence Galvez-Boado, on the ground of his psychological incapacity.

Their love story started when they met in 1999. Roughly three years later, or in 2002, they decided to settle down and marry each other. Florence and Ronald decided not to live together immediately, as Ronald worked in Saudi Arabia.

During Ronald's brief vacation in 2004, they held a church wedding, after which the husband returned abroad. A year later, he came back to the Philippines, which served as their opportunity to live together. Ronald and Florence were blessed with two children: a son in 2007 and a daughter in 2012. As the years passed by, their relationship began to turn sour due to frequent misunderstandings and periods of separation.

In 2016, Ronald filed a petition for nullification of marriage on the ground of his psychological incapacity. He attached a psychologist's diagnosis, which showed that he had passive-aggressive personality disorder—an illness marked by emotional detachment and difficulty maintaining close relationships.

Initially the Regional Trial Court granted the petition, saying the petitioner had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity in a legal sense, but the said ruling was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. This prompted Ronald to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reinstating the RTC's ruling and deciding in favor of Ronald, the high court said his psychological incapacity had been sufficiently proven. It cited Article 36 of the Family Code, which states that a marriage may be declared void if one or both spouses are psychologically incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations—even if such incapacity manifested only after the wedding.

The SC found that Ronald's incapacity was deeply rooted in his personal character and had existed before the marriage. It emphasized that psychological incapacity may not be immediately visible and may surface only later in the relationship.

It added that Ronald's inability to emotionally connect stemmed from an upbringing marked by strictness and emotional immaturity from his parents. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

“Loving one’s spouse is an important, if not the most important, essential marital obligation,” the Supreme Court said.

The SC ruled to grant Ronald's petition because of his inability as a husband to love his wife, which was caused by his psychological condition, adding that the court cannot force him to stay in a loveless marriage.

18/09/2025

Iginiit ng ang mga angkop na legal na paraan para sa pagbawi ng lupa depende sa kung ito ay para sa posesyon (possession) at/o pagmamay-ari (ownership) nito, gayundin ang mga nalalapat na prescriptive period. Kasama sa mga remedyong ito ang accion interdictal o ejectment, accion publiciana, at accion reivindicatoria.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, sinabi ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema na tama si Lea Victa-Espinosa (Espinosa) sa paghain ng accion publiciana para mabawi ang posesyon ng kanyang lupain. Sa pangkalahatan, maaari lang ihain ang accion publiciana kapag higit sa isang taon na ang lumipas mula sa pagkakaalis ng posesyon. Pero maaari pa rin itong ihain nang mas maaga kung nangyari ito nang walang halong puwersa, pananakot, pagbabanta, diskarte, o panlilinlang.

Nagpasya din ang Korte Suprema na hindi isang accion reivindicatoria ang inihain ni Espinosa dahil hindi niya hiniling sa kanyang reklamo ang pagbawi ng pagmamay-ari ng lupa.

Matapos bilhin ang ari-arian, nalaman ni Espinosa na inuokupa ang isang bahagi nito ng mag-asawang Noel at Leny Agullo. Nang tumanggi silang umalis sa kabila ng kanyang kahilingan, nagsampa si Espinosa ng reklamo para sa pagbawi ng posesyon ng lupa sa Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Tinanggihan ng RTC ang reklamo nang walang paglilitis at nagpasya na masyadong maaga itong isinampa. Ipinaliwanag nito na mayroon pa ring opsyon si Espinosa na magsampa ng kaso ng ejectment na dapat gawin sa loob ng isang taon mula nang matuklasan niya ang hindi awtorisadong pag-okupa sa kanyang lupain. Napaaga ang reklamo dahil maaari lang umano ihain ang isang accion publiciana sa pangkalahatan pagkatapos lumipas ang isang taon.

Gayunpaman, binaliktad ng Court of Appeals ang desisyon ng RTC. Nakita nito na hindi isang accion publiciana kundi isang accion reivindicatoria ang reklamo ni Espinosa dahil sinikap niyang mabawi ang lupa batay sa kanyang pagmamay-ari ng ari-arian.

Sa kanilang Petisyon sa Korte Suprema, iginiit ng mag-asawang Agullo na isang accion publiciana na maagang isinampa ang kaso ni Espinosa dahil wala pang isang taon ang lumipas mula nang mawala sa kanila ang posesyon ng lupa.

Tinanggihan ng Korte Suprema ang Petisyon. Nilinaw nito ang iba't ibang legal na aksyon na magagamit para sa mga paghahabol na may kaugnayan sa lupa:
• Accion interdictal o isang summary ejectment case;
• Accion publiciana; at
• Accion reivindicatoria.

Inihahain ang summary ejectment case para mabawi ang pisikal na posesyon ng lupa kapag ang pag-aalis ay dahil sa puwersa, pananakot, pagbabanta, diskarte, o pagnanakaw at hindi pa tumatagal ng higit sa isang taon.

Inihahain naman ang isang accion publiciana para mabawi ang posesyon ng lupa kapag higit sa isang taon ang lumipas mula nang mapunta sa iba ang lupa, o kahit wala pang isang taon kung walang ginamit na puwersa o katulad na pamamaraan.

Sa kabilang banda, inihahain ang isang accion reivindicatoria para mabawi ang parehong pagmamay-ari at posesyon batay sa pagmamay-ari na iyon.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, sa accion publiciana, ang isyu ay kung sino ang may mas mabuting karapatan na angkinin ang lupa nang hindi kinakailangang mag-claim ng pagmamay-ari. Sa kabaliktaran, sa accion reivindicatoria, tinutukoy kung sino ang nagmamay-ari ng lupa, at ang posesyon ng lupa ay ibinibigay sa nararapat na may-ari.

Sa kasong ito, ang aksyon ay publiciana at hindi reinvindicatoria dahil ang hiniling sa reklamo ay mabawi ang posesyon at hindi ang pagmamay-ari ng lupa. Dagdag pa nito, hindi kwinestiyon ng mag-asawang Agullo ang titulo ni Espinosa.

Sinabi ng Korte na hindi napaaga ang aksyon dahil maaaring magsampa ang isang accion publiciana kahit sa loob ng isang taon mula sa pagkakaalis sa lupa kung walang puwersa, pananakot, pagbabanta, diskarte, o panlilinlang na ginamit. Dahil hindi sinabi ni Espinosa na ginamit ng mag-asawang Agullo ang alinman sa mga paraan na ito, wastong naihain ang aksyon.

Inutusan ng Korte Suprema ang RTC na magpatuloy sa paglilitis at pagdesisyunan ang kaso.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/y7nr9hzx.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/38e2xzfa.

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

27/08/2025

FYI

The (SC) has ruled that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) automatically ceases upon the death of the person who granted it, and any acts carried out by the agent afterwards are void, unless covered by narrow exceptions under the law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division held that Jessica Alova Uberas lost her authority under the SPA to act on behalf of her father, Meliton Alova, upon his death in 1998.

In 1998, Meliton executed an SPA in favor of Jessica over the subject conjugal property. He died later that year. Despite the death of his father, Jessica still used the same SPA in 2003 to execute a mortgage over the said property in favor of San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) to secure her loan from the company. Jessica failed to pay the loan and the property was foreclosed where SMFI emerged as the winning bidder.

Felicidad Alova and Decelyn Alova Pution, the widow and other daughter of Meliton, filed a case to nullify the mortgage and the foreclosure sale.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) determined that Meliton’s death ended the agency. However, the RTC found that because the SPA had the conformity of Felicidad, Meliton’s wife, the mortgage was valid on her ½ share of the conjugal property. On the other hand, the CA declared the mortgage invalid, citing that it was not executed on behalf of Spouses Meliton and Felicidad.

SMFI appealed to the SC, which partly ruled in its favor. The Court upheld the agency’s termination but validated the mortgage and foreclosure sale with respect to Jessica’s undivided share in the property.

The SC explained that under an SPA, which is a contract of agency, a principal authorizes an agent to act on his or her behalf in transactions with third persons. Agency is personal, representative, and derivative, and it ends upon the death of either the principal or the agent.

Any act by the agent after the principal’s death is void, unless it falls under two Civil Code exceptions: (1) when the agency was for the parties’ common interest, and (2) when the agent, unaware of the death or agency’s end, contracted with a third party in good faith.

In this case, there was no showing that these exceptions were applicable. Jessica was fully aware of her father’s death, and the SPA was not made for their mutual benefit.

The SC also reiterated that for an agent’s act to bind the principal, the deed must clearly be made, signed, and sealed in the principal’s name.

Here, although Jessica was described in the beginning of the deed as Meliton’s attorney-in-fact, the mortgage was signed by Jessica in her personal capacity, as it was neither executed nor sealed in Meliton’s name, and without indication that she was acting as attorney-in-fact.

The Court also ruled that Meliton’s wife, Felicidad, was not bound as a principal under the SPA, as she only provided her marital conformity.

However, the Court clarified that the mortgage and foreclosure sale were not entirely void. Jessica automatically became a co-owner of the property after her father’s death. When she signed the mortgage, she encumbered her share in the property to secure her obligation to SMFI. Therefore, the mortgage and foreclosure sale were valid only for Jessica’s share.

The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine Jessica’s share in the subject property and to annotate the shares of Meliton’s other heirs, and that of SMFI which acquired Jessica’s interest.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260071-san-miguel-foods-inc-vs-felicidad-d-alova-and-decelyn-alova-pution/

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