Atty. Raffy J. Roncales

29/04/2026

𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩

Grateful to M Lhuillier, our valued partner in the Accident Insurance Program, for the generous donation of foldable tents.

Special thanks to Mr. AL JAY T. MARCOS, Regional Insurance Coordinator; Ms. JULIET PAMAD, Insurance Coordinator; and Mr. JOVANIE LANORIAS, Regional Lending Coordinator, for their support and commitment to this initiative.

These tents will be distributed to the different barangays of Malaybalay City through the Office of 𝗦𝗣 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗼, helping strengthen our community’s preparedness and support during various activities and emergencies.

Daghan salamat, M Lhuillier, for your continued commitment to service and community partnership! 💙

26/04/2026

The (SC) has ruled that ISCO Holding Corporation (ISCO) cannot register its “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍 & 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐆𝐍” mark as it constitutes Nikon Corporation’s trade name and is confusingly similar to the well-known “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍” trademark of the said corporation.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division denied ISCO’s petition and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), which rejected ISCO’s trademark application.

ISCO filed an application for a trademark for its home and household goods containing the design of an anchor enclosed in a circle with the word “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍”.

Nikon Corp., a foreign corporation and prior registrant and user of the “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍” mark in the Philippines, opposed the application, arguing that ISCO’s mark is confusingly similar to its own mark.

The Intellectual Property Office–Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO‑BLA) agreed with Nikon Corp. and denied ISCO’s application. Although the IPO Office of the Director General later reversed this ruling, the CA reinstated the IPO-BLA’s decision, prompting ISCO to elevate the case to the SC.

ISCO claimed that its goods are unrelated to Nikon Corp.’s and that differences, such as the image of an anchor enclosed in a circle and the color scheme, prevent consumer confusion.

The SC upheld the CA’s ruling and held that ISCO’s mark cannot be registered. It explained that trademarks are used to identify and distinguish goods or services. Under Section 147 of the 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, one of the rights of a trademark owner is to exclude others from using their trademark in a way that would confuse consumers and cause financial harm to the owner.

If a well‑known trademark is registered in the Philippines, no other party may register an identical or confusingly similar mark—even if the goods are different.

In this case, the SC found that Nikon Corp.’s trademark is well‑known. The NIKON mark has long been used, promoted, and registered worldwide, including in the Philippines, with the company enjoying significant global sales and market presence.

The SC also found NIKON to be a highly distinctive trademark. It is a coined or invented word with no ordinary meaning in English or Filipino and is not commonly used in the Philippines except as a trademark.

Analyzing the two marks, the SC found that ISCO’s trademark is confusingly similar to NIKON’s. It applied the 𝐃𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭, which focuses on the most noticeable and memorable part of the marks. Minor differences in design, color, or layout are disregarded.

Both ISCO’s and Nikon Corp.’s marks prominently use the word “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍.” This word is the dominant feature of both marks. They are spelled the same, appear in bold capital letters, and sound exactly the same when pronounced. Because of this, the SC ruled that the two marks create the same visual and auditory impression.

The SC explained that if ISCO were allowed to use its NIKON mark, consumers would likely assume a connection with Nikon Corp. Given its reputation for cameras, the public might believe that ISCO’s household appliances are made, approved, or endorsed by Nikon Corp., or that it has expanded into household products.

The SC also warned that ISCO’s use of the NIKON mark would damage Nikon Corp.’s interests because it would weaken its mark’s ability to uniquely identify a single source of goods. The law protects famous trademarks from such uses to prevent the blurring of their distinctiveness and to preserve their value and reputation.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164274

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164266

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy

13/04/2026

A GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL CROSS-EXAMINATION.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada

There are three most important aspects of conducting cross-examination: control, control, and control of the witness, the evidence, and the entire scenario in the courtroom.

Further, the rules of primacy and recency. The said rules, respectively, means that the judge will believe the credible testimony they hear first and remember the longest that which they hear last. Therefore, it is essential in planning cross-examination to ensure a strong opening and finish on the strongest point possible.

TECHNIQUE IS CRUCIAL.

Technique in cross-examination is crucial. Open-ended questions such as “why” or "please explain,” which allow the witness to gain control of the answer, must be avoided.

Reiteration of the witness's testimony on direct is disastrous and should also be avoided. Repetition of each answer as a preface to the next question breaks the rhythm of the cross, and you must be careful not to fall into such habits as beginning each question with "Now, let me ask you this question . . . ."

THE RULE OF PRIMACY.

Use a strong opening consistent with the rule of primacy. You should seek a strong opening in your cross-examination; that is, you should begin cross-examination with a point on which you are certain you can score.

If there is a line of questioning with which you can obtain several agreements from the witness to bolster your case, pursue this line before discrediting or impeaching the witness. We call this a concession technique.

BE BRIEF.

Brevity in cross-examination is important. Ask no unimportant questions on cross-examination. A question that does not advance your case hinders it. If possible, limit your points of examination to a maximum of three strong points.

As cross-examination begins, you have the renewed attention of the judge, who is hoping for an interesting confrontation with the adverse witness. You must retain that attention by asking poignant, significant, and relevant questions, and by scoring points consistently during the examination.

A cross-examiner is only as good as her last series of questions. The judge will not remember a great deal of the testimony of any one witness. Therefore, the cross-examiner should, if possible, limit cross to those few points or areas that are critical in the issue of the case.

THE RULE ON RECENCY.

This principle says that the judge will remember longest that which they hear last. You should end each cross-examination on a very strong point. However, it is also important to finish the case as a whole with very significant points along the way. Insignificant testimony which are not very significant yo the case must not be tackled anymore. It may only dilute or diminish the more important ones. Insignificant and minor inconsistency maybe ignored.

You must be constantly aware not only of the content of cross-examination but also of the timing of the questioning.

MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE WITNESS.

Use leading questions here. The leading question is the primary weapon in the arsenal with which the cross-examiner controls the witness. Since witness control is the sine qua non of successful cross-examination, effective use of the leading question is a vital skill. The leading question allows you to couch each question in terms of your theory of the lawsuit and, when properly framed, limits the response of the witness.

However, you have to avoid overusing leading questions. If you use too many, the judge may get the impression that you are testifying rather than the witness.

Also avoid the appearance that, because you will not allow the witness to fully answer the question, the witness is being treated unfairly. Explain to the witness that his counsel can permit him to fully explain his answer during redirect examination but that it is important on cross-examination to follow the rules and simply affirm or deny your questions.

ELICIT “YES” or “NO” ANSWERS.

The leading question contains within itself the answer that the examiner seeks, thus requiring only a ratification or confirmation from the witness. Leading questions should be couched in terms of the examiner's theory of the lawsuit so that an affirmative answer advances the plaintiff's cause.

For example, the leading question, " Mr. Reyes, as you approached the intersection, the signal light was red, correct?” contains the answer that the questioner seeks, that the light was red. The witness needs to answer only yes or no with no necessity to expound further on the answer.

More significantly, the question is also couched in terms of the plaintiff's theory of the lawsuit, that the witness was negligent in running a red light and in causing the accident and resulting injuries to the plaintiff.

Skillful phrasing of leading questions, carefully couched in terms of the plaintiff's theory of the case, is essential to several aspects of cross-examination: the witness is limited to yes or no answers, the testimony of the witness is controlled through avoidance of lengthy answers, the plaintiff's case is advanced through affirmative responses to leading questions, and tightly controlled leading questions are of extreme importance in maintaining control while discrediting or impeaching a witness.

AVOID OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS.

The open-ended question is one that allows the witness to explain fully and often at length the answer to the examiner's question. The classic example of the catastrophically open-ended question is asking an expert,

“How can you possibly have arrived at such an opinion?" In answering this question, the expert may testify at length as to every factor that played a part in forming the opinion. Such a recitation can only be disastrous to the cross-examiner's case.

While there are no universal rules of witness examination, inquiries such as "why," "how," or “please explain” are almost invariably to be avoided.

ALLOW RE-NARRATION OR REPETITION RARELY.

You may permit the witness to re-narrate or repeat an answer given on direct when you are trying to demonstrate that the witness has memorized the story and will tell the same story two, three, or more times in precisely the same words. Normally, a witness will not repeat a story verbatim unless it is memorized. However, few counsel will leave their witnesses open to this type of cross-examination.

Another situation in which a witness may be encouraged on cross-examination to re-narrate is when the witness has told a story on direct that is so vulnerable that it can be totally destroyed. It must be emphasized, however, that such an approach is rarely indicated or justified.

LIMIT TALKATIVE OR EVASIVE WITNESS.

The cross-examiner frequently encounters witnesses who will not respond yes or no to leading questions but either insist on explaining every answer or evade answering the questions. Dealing with such witnesses creates problems, and there are two basic approaches to handling them.

First, the cross-examiner can seek to enlist the aid of the judge in limiting the talkativeness or evasiveness of the witness. Ask the judge to admonish the witness not to explain but to answer only yes or no.

But faced with an unresponsive answer, the cross examiner may move to strike the answer and request the court to warn the witness to respond directly to the question. When examining a witness who seeks to explain every answer, you may request the court to instruct the witness to limit answers during cross-examination to responses to the questions posed by the examiner and to further instruct that defense counsel, during redirect examination, will have a chance to bring out explanations.

The second approach is to allow the witness to duck, dodge, and explain, within certain limits. If the witness gives an unresponsive answer, ask the question again; if the answer is again unresponsive, ask the same question a third time. Then ask the “explainer” to limit answers to yes or no; explain that the witness will have a chance during redirect examination to explain the answers.

Those examiners who do not seek to enlist the aid of the court in dealing with the problem witness and allow the witness to be unresponsive or evasive believe that the judge will be able to detect the witness's lack of cooperation and candor and will draw their own adverse conclusions about the witness.
-end-

10/04/2026

A small surprise for a great mentor. Happy Birthday to our Senior Lawyer, Atty. Hollis Monsanto—your guidance means everything to us. 🎉

31/03/2026

Service with purpose. ⚖️

On March 25, 2026, we had the privilege of conducting free legal services in partnership with XFM Radio Station for its 4th Anniversary celebration—bringing legal assistance closer to the community, one conversation at a time.

Grateful for the opportunity to serve, to listen, and to help empower individuals through the law. Public service goes beyond the courtroom—it lives where people need it most.

29/03/2026

Honored and grateful to return to my roots as a guest speaker at my alma mater, Malaybalay Adventist Elementary School, during their 51st Graduation Ceremony.

Standing in the same place where my journey began felt surreal—and seeing some of my elementary teachers again made it even more meaningful. Truly a full-circle moment.

Thank you for the warm welcome and for shaping who I am today.

25/03/2026

Kitakits karung adlawa sa Barangay Managok mga Ka tropa. ⚖️

𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐁𝐈𝐒𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐆 𝐊𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐀 𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐕𝐀𝐍 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔🎉
Ipahigayon ang Serbisyong KATROPA Caravan sa Covered Court sa Barangay Managok karong Marso 25, 2026 (Miyerkules) gikan alas 8:00 sa buntag hangtod alas 3:00 sa hapon.

Ang maong kalihokan bukas alang sa mga KLASS members ug mga residente sa silingang mga barangay nga gustong makabenepisyo sa lain-laing serbisyong ihatag sa caravan.

LIBRENG MGA SERBISYO:
• Vehicle Pickup for KLASS
• Gupit
• Serbisyo sa Animal Veterinary
• Ibot sa ngipon
• Tuli
• Blood letting
• Masahe
• Yes 2 Health Consultation
•Legal Advice
• Arrozcaldo (Greek Brotherhood Alliance Malaybalay)

Paspas nga proseso gikan sa Serbisyo sa mga ahensya sa gobyerno:
• COMELEC (Satellite Registration)
• PSA (Birth Certificate, CENOMAR, National ID, ug uban pa)
• PhilHealth assistance
• SSS services
• LTO services sama sa (Student Permit (SP), renewal sa lisensya, ug rehistro sa sakyanan)

Dugang nga serbisyo:
• Libreng check-up sa motor
• Libreng change oil gikan sa El Elyon Shell Mobility Station
Daghan pang ubang serbisyo ang inyong mapahimuslan!

🎉 Aduna usab raffle para sa mga motambong, See you mga ktropa!

07/03/2026

𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗕𝗣𝗦𝗢 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗠𝗕𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

On March 06, 2026, JOENALD DONATO, a BPSO of Barangay Miglamin, received medical reimbursement financial assistance from the Life Accident Insurance Program initiated by Board Member Atty. Hollis Monsanto.

This program of BM Monsanto continues to support BPSOs in Malaybalay in partnership with M Lhuillier, through sir AL JAY T. MARCOS, providing additional assistance to them in case of unavoidable incidents that may occur while they are serving their respective barangays.

25/02/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that search made after a lawful arrest extends to the surroundings within the immediate control of the accused and evidence obtained during such search is admissible even if they are not within the “plain view” of the arresting officers.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of Jeryl Bautista for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002, as amended.

During a buy-bust operation, a police officer posed as a buyer and received from Bautista 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 in exchange for PHP 500. After the officer made a pre-arranged signal, the rest of the arresting team rushed to the place of the transaction.

Bautista was arrested and a representative from the Department of Justice, and two barangay kagawads arrived shortly after.

Subsequently, the officer searched Bautista and found three more sachets of suspected 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 hidden inside a cellphone charger. The officer also found a cellphone, screwdriver, weighing scale, and marked money. The police then marked the four sachets, prepared an inventory of the seized items, and took photographs.

Bautista argued that the additional sachets should not be admitted as evidence because they were not within the plain view of the police officers when seized during his arrest.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both convicted Bautista of illegal possession of 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶.

The SC upheld Bautista’s conviction and rejected his argument. It explained that the plain view doctrine is not the only justification for a warrantless search, as the search could be done to a person who has just been lawfully arrested.

Searches and seizures generally require a warrant. If police perform a search or seize property without a valid warrant, any evidence obtained cannot be used in court and is considered inadmissible. However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule.

One of these is the plain view doctrine, which allows police officers to seize evidence in plain sight when: (1) the officer has a lawful reason to be in the place where the item is seen, (2) the discovery of the item is unplanned or incidental, and (3) it is immediately obvious that the item is connected to a crime or is illegal.

Another recognized exception is a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. To be valid, it must meet these conditions: (1) the accused is lawfully arrested, (2) the arresting officers subsequently made a warrantless search, (3) the search is limited to the person of the accused and the area within the accused’s immediate control, and (4) the search is performed at the place of the arrest.

In this case, Bautista was arrested during a buy-bust operation. He was frisked as part of the arrest. While the sachets hidden inside his cellphone charger were not in the officers’ plain view, the SC held that the warrantless search remained valid because it was done as part of a lawful arrest and the search extended to those that are within the immediate control of the accused at the time of the arrest.

To convict a person of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the drug, that the possession was not authorized by law, and that it was done knowingly and freely.

The SC found that all these elements were present. The search revealed three additional sachets of 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 hidden inside a cellphone charger. Bautista could not explain why he had the drugs nor show any authority allowing him to possess them. His act of hiding the sachets inside the charger also showed his intent to keep them.

Bautista was sentenced to a maximum of 16 years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 300,000.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161226

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161221

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

19/02/2026

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has issued guidelines in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, clarifying that it must be evaluated based on the person’s true intent and the totality of the circumstances.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC granted the accused’s petition and reduced his sentence, recognizing his surrender as voluntary even if he surrendered after learning of the issuance of arrest warrant against him.

The accused went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to apply for clearance. During processing, his name registered a “hit”, indicating he had a pending case. He admitted this to the NBI officer.

He was instructed to return after one week while the records were being verified. When he came back, the NBI officer confirmed he had a pending bigamy case and an outstanding warrant for his arrest issued 13 years earlier. He then told the officer, “masuko na lang ako” (I will surrender) and asked help in posting bail. The arrest warrant was then served on him.

The NBI later issued a certificate stating that he voluntarily surrendered to their office. However, the return of the warrant and order of release described him as having been “arrested.”

During arraignment, the accused first pleaded not guilty but later entered into a plea bargain, asking the court to consider his voluntary surrender and guilty plea.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of bigamy and considered his plea of guilt, but ruled that he did not voluntarily surrender. It relied on the warrant’s return and release order, which stated that he was “arrested,” and noted that the case had been pending for 13 years because he could not be located. The Court of Appeals affirmed this, finding that he went to the NBI not to surrender but to apply for clearance, and that when he said he would surrender, he had no choice because he was already inside the NBI office.

The SC disagreed.

Under Article 13(7) of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, voluntary surrender requires that the offender had not been arrested; they surrendered themselves to a person in authority or its agent; and the surrender was voluntary.

In this case, the accused returned to the NBI and said he would surrender before the arrest warrant was actually served on him. He had not yet been arrested. He also surrendered to an NBI officer, a person in authority.

The SC ruled that voluntary surrender must be viewed with a “more considerate and broad-minded approach” once guilt has been established. It stressed that voluntary surrender must be assessed through the totality of circumstances, laying down the following guiding principles:

1. The voluntariness and spontaneity of the surrender must show that offender either admits their guilt or wish to spare authorities the trouble of searching for and arresting them.

2. The circumstances of the voluntary surrender is independent of the fact of the issuance of the arrest warrant. The mere fact of the arrest warrant’s prior issuance should not be taken against the accused’s claim of voluntary surrender when other circumstances point to the fulfillment of all requirements, including voluntariness. However, knowledge of the accused of the existence of an arrest warrant against them and their continued evasion of justice can negate voluntariness and spontaneity.

3. The lapse of time an accused used to evade the law could be a criterion in negating spontaneity.

4. Voluntariness is not negated by the fact that there is likelihood that the accused may be arrested anytime before they surrendered. Imminence of arrest should be coupled with an indication that the accused fled or could further escape and evade, before it could deny voluntariness.

5. The intention of the accused at the time of surrender must be considered with other circumstances in determining entitlement to mitigating circumstance. The offender is not required to surrender at the first opportunity.

6. If the records do not clearly show that the offender voluntarily surrendered, that doubt cannot be resolved in their favor.

As to the voluntariness of his surrender, the SC emphasized that if he intended to evade arrest, he would not have returned to the NBI. While his first visit was to secure a clearance, his decision to return despite knowing there might be an active case shows his willingness to cooperate with the authorities.

The SC also clarified that while he knew about the pending case, there was no proof that he knew a warrant for his arrest had already been issued. It also noted the absence of any attempt to flee, his open use of his real name, and the fact that he returned to the NBI on his own.

The SC also reminded judges to avoid making quick or premature conclusions, emphasizing:

“What the Court asks and expects of magistrates on the frontlines of justice is to adjudge each case wholly, fully, and fairly as discerning persons learned in the law and literate in life experience, and not as cold-hearted automatons or soulless supercomputers, for even a single judge’s role in the administration of our penal laws can indeed have far-reaching consequences for the parties and for human society as a whole… The law may be harsh, but it need not be harsher.”

The accused’s sentence was reduced from a maximum of six years to a maximum of four years in prison.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160857

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160836

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/258592-formerly-udk-no-17170-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

14/02/2026

⚖️❤️

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/.