Atty. Radel Llagas

21/02/2026

Here's a quick guide to help you come prepared and make the most out of your legal consultation. ✅💼⚖

Need an attorney? Message us!

15/02/2026

10/02/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division granted a woman’s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

07/02/2026

23/01/2026

Whether it's property, contracts, or personal matters, getting legal guidance early can help you avoid unnecessary stress or costly mistakes.

Need one? Message us!

28/11/2025

The (SC) has ruled that voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over a labor dispute only when both parties clearly and mutually agree to it. One party’s agreement is not enough if the other consistently objects.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division ruled that the panel of voluntary arbitrators lacked authority to resolve the monetary claims of Benjie Tandayag against Magsaysay Maritime Corporation. Instead, the jurisdiction over the dispute lies with the Labor Arbiter (LA).

Tandayag, a seafarer hired by the corporation for one of its vessels, suffered a work-related injury while on board the vessel, leaving him permanently disabled. There was no collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between him and the corporation.

When the corporation refused to pay his disability and other related benefits, he filed a case with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, which referred it to a panel of voluntary arbitrators (panel).

The parties entered into a submission agreement to arbitrate before the panel. However, the corporation argued that the panel lacked jurisdiction over the monetary claims. The panel disagreed, stating that the corporation waived its right to contest the panel’s jurisdiction when it signed the submission agreement. Ultimately, it ruled in favor of Tandayag.

The corporation challenged this decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled that the LA, not the voluntary arbitrators, has jurisdiction.

Upholding the CA, the SC cited the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, which provides that money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed before the LA, a rule similarly stated in RA 8042 or the 𝘔𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 for claims of overseas Filipino workers. Voluntary arbitrators, on the other hand, handle disputes involving CBAs, company policies, and 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 that 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁 to them.

In this case, there was no CBA, but Tandayag and the panel relied on the parties’ submission agreement.

However, records show that the corporation promptly and repeatedly objected to the voluntary arbitrators’ authority. In fact, it even asked that the jurisdiction issue be resolved and insisted that the case belonged to the LA.

The SC explained that the submission agreement did not mean the corporation accepted the voluntary arbitrators’ jurisdiction, since it clearly raised the issue from the start.

The SC added that while voluntary arbitration is encouraged, “𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳.” Submission to arbitration by one side is not enough if the other side consistently objects.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156011.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156005.

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

17/11/2025

22/10/2025

Paalala mula sa IBP: Protektahan ang sarili laban sa pekeng abogado.

Verify before you trust.

21/10/2025

The has reiterated that just compensation in land expropriation cases must be based on all relevant factors, not just market value.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division remanded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) the case between the City Government of Pasay (Pasay LGU) and Arellano University (University) to reassess the amount of just compensation owed to the latter.

The University filed a complaint before the RTC in 2015, claiming that the Pasay LGU took its 805-sq. m. parcel of land in Barangay San Isidro and turned it into a public road, now known as Menlo Street, without going through proper expropriation proceedings or paying just compensation. The parties subsequently referred the matter to a board of commissioners composed of Pasay LGU officials.

The board used a base value of PHP200/sq. m. based on the 1978 General Revision of the City Assessor’s Office, then added 6% annual interest from 1978, the year the street was discovered, up to 2017, resulting in a value of PHP2,060/sq. m.

The University disagreed and proposed a total compensation of PHP 5,793,664.63, arguing that the interest should be based on the rates published by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

The RTC adopted the board’s base value but applied a different interest rate, ordering Pasay LGU to pay PHP 161,000 plus 12% annual interest from 1978 to 2018.

The CA remanded the case to the RTC, ruling that the RTC relied solely on the 1978 assessment and ignored other relevant factors.

The SC upheld the CA, finding that the RTC’s decision was based on incomplete data.

Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The SC emphasized that just compensation must be real, substantial, full, and ample, and that determining this amount is a matter for the courts to decide.

The SC clarified that although local government assessors provide appraisals, these are not controlling in expropriation cases. Such appraisals often cover broad areas and do not account for specific property differences. They rely on general descriptions and may be inaccurate. And while tax values can serve as a guideline, they cannot substitute for a comprehensive assessment of just compensation.

Thus, courts must use a “totality of circumstances” approach, considering all facts about the property’s condition, surroundings, existing improvements, and capabilities. These include the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, acquisition cost, tax declarations, size, shape, location, and the current value of similar properties.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153762

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153692

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153737

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