Calderon Law Office

Calderon Law Office We offer Legal and Notarial Services.

28/11/2025

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose Lorenzo R. dela Rosa, a member of the Remedial Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses key issues on land titles and the steps buyers should take before acquiring properties in Episode 95: Protecting the Integrity of Land Titles.

What is a reconstituted title, and how is it different from the original title or the owner's duplicate? What remedies are available to buyers defrauded by sellers?

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

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4NcLjdE0axrvAej7wGMueu?si=8BzkNdj4QIufZoL1glN-Ow

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/episode-95-protecting-the-integrity-of-land-titles/id1852172756?i=1000737742658

YouTube: https://youtu.be/KRcs30UAwwQ

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1MuvG4RZ8s/

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

Our office have now resumed operations and will be happy to serve you.We are open from:Mon-Fri @ 10:00 AM - 5:00 PMSat ...
03/11/2025

Our office have now resumed operations and will be happy to serve you.

We are open from:

Mon-Fri @ 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Sat @ 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM

For any concerns, kindly contact us at 09933197919, 09953866448, our page or at [email protected].

NOTICE TO THE PUBLICPlease be informed that phone number 09812441185 is no longer used as our contact number. Any messag...
03/11/2025

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

Please be informed that phone number 09812441185 is no longer used as our contact number. Any messages and calls through this number can no longer be entertained.

Kindly take note of the following new contact numbers of Calderon Law Office:

09933197919
09953866448

Communication through these numbers is effective immediately.

Thank you.

For any concerns, kindly contact us at 09933197919
09953866448, our page or at [email protected].

Our Office will be closed for the mean time until further notice due to the passing of Atty. Calderon's mother. For any...
19/10/2025

Our Office will be closed for the mean time until further notice due to the passing of Atty. Calderon's mother.

For any legal assistance, kindly contact our office through the contact details we have provided. However, expect further delays on our responses. We pray for your understanding at our moment of grief.

Thank you.

01/07/2025

The is finally online. Lawyers may now file and track their cases before the through this secure, convenient, and fully digital platform anytime, anywhere.

This is pursuant to A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC, or the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court, which may be accessed here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/25-05-16-SC.pdf

Reminders:
- Double check: ensure all uploaded IDs are valid and verify the accuracies of all entries
- Back up: scan and save digital copies of documents
- Be mindful of deadlines: give yourself enough time to upload all documents

Watch the step-by-step guide on how to use at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFvi1f_zPE

You can also watch the instructional video on how to create an account at the PJP at https://youtu.be/xWU5cbmWcbA?si=Zewl-ZXk1qPuGFhj

For more details, visit https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ecourt-ph/

30/06/2025

VERBAL SALE OF LAND VALID IF FULLY OR PARTLY PERFORMED —SUPREME COURT

| The Supreme Court (SC) held that a sale of land made through a verbal agreement can be valid and binding even though it has no written contract—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In an 18-page decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo, as it held that the latter had already received the land title, moved into the property, and improved it.

Records showed that the property was registered under Batara’s name. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, were initially unaware of the property, as they only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Meanwhile, Ocampo said he bought the land from his uncle Batara when he was still alive. After his uncle’s death, Ocampo kept paying installments to his uncle’s brother. He also presented the land title as proof. This prompted Batara's children to file a reclamation case.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of the heirs of Batara, emphasizing that since the land was registered in their father’s name, they had a stronger legal claim, adding that Ocampo’s contentions were unsupported by sufficient proof other than his verbal testimony.

In reversing the said ruling and affirming the validity of the sale between Ocampo and Batara, the high court said that even without a written contract, the sale was valid because Ocampo was already in possession of the land and made improvements on it, which are strong signs that a verbal sale had already taken place.

It cited the Civil Code, which provides that buyers who are already living on the property can use the verbal agreement as a legal basis for their possession, even without a written contract.

"Under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale. However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened," the SC said.

However, the SC said that Ocampo’s payments to Batara's brother were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept payments on behalf of Batara’s heirs. While it affirmed the validity of the verbal agreement, the court ordered Ocampo to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price to Noblesa and Ernesto, with corresponding legal interest.

20/06/2025

SUPREME COURT GOES DIGITAL

| The Supreme Court (SC) will start its transition to mandatory electronic filing of select cases starting July 1, 2025, through the eCourt PH app available on the Philippine Judiciary Platform (PJP), which is considered a significant step toward digitalizing the country's judicial system.

In a press conference on Thursday, SC spokesperson Atty. Camille Sue Mae Ting revealed that the court en banc approved the new guidelines on May 20, 2025, which aim to prepare for the mandatory e-filing implementation starting October 1, 2025.

Ting said during the July 1 to September 30, 2025 transition period, lawyers must file specific initiatory pleadings and motions for extension of time digitally via the PJP, in addition to traditional paper-based methods (personal, registered mail, or courier).

Covered cases for digital filing include

(1) Petitions for review on certiorari (Rule 45), with or without applications for temporary restraining orders (TRO), writs of preliminary injunction (WPI), or other provisional remedies. (2) Review of judgments and final orders/resolutions from the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit (Rule 64). (3) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus (Rule 65), with or without applications for TROs, WPIs, or other provisional remedies. (4) Petitions for contempt. (5) Petitions for the issuance of prerogative writs (habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data, kalikasan, and continuing mandamus). and (6) quo warranto actions.

Lawyers must register and verify their credentials on the PJTP before filing. Subsequent pleadings for ongoing cases filed from 1 July onward will also be subject to the same digital requirements. Service of these documents must still adhere to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Non-lawyers—such as law student practitioners, court sheriffs, and other court personnel not part of the Philippine Bar—will continue to file via traditional means, including personal submission, registered mail, or through an accredited courier.

Ting describes the platform as a game changer that will provide a more efficient delivery of notices.

“In terms of speed and efficiency, this will be a game-changer. Lawyers and parties will no longer need to wait days for notices to arrive. Everything is delivered instantly through the platform,” Ting said.

Meanwhile, on the matter of hacking and cyberthreats, Ting reassured the public that strong protections are in place to secure sensitive information.

At present, only lawyers and involved parties may access uploaded files. Public access to decisions, especially those of public interest, may be introduced in the future. For now, the E-Court PH system applies exclusively to the Supreme Court, but the judiciary is planning to expand its use to the Court of Appeals and lower courts.

23/05/2025

| The Public Attorneys Office (PAO) on Thursday revealed that it will open a platform through the eGovPH app to offer free and instant legal advice and counseling, similar to the PAO’s 24-hour hotline where lawyers have been assigned to take in calls.

In a televised interview on PTV, PAO Chief Persida Acosta said this is part of the government initiative to boost the Filipinos' access to legal services.

The PAO chief added that a person would not need any proof of indigency or any requirements if they seek legal services through the platform. Meanwhile, those will be needed legal representation in court or for help with preparing legal documents need to secure necessary requirements as proof of identity.

Acosta said all information should be verified, as she would task public attorneys to screen legitimate callers and those who are not.

As part of this project, the PAO expects to hire at least 87 new lawyers to address the lack of staff. People can also go to the new Presidential Action Center in San Juan for face-to-face consultation, provided that these clients would need to register through the eGov app for a PAO appointment.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLICPlease be informed that CATHERINE CENTENO, whose picture appears in this post, is no longer connecte...
18/05/2025

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

Please be informed that CATHERINE CENTENO, whose picture appears in this post, is no longer connected with CALDERON LAW OFFICE AND NOTARIAL SERVICES or any of its associates and staff, effective January 12, 2025.

Any transaction made by her on behalf of this law office from the said date onwards will not be honored and the office will not be held liable for the same.

For any concerns, kindly contact us at 0981 244 1185, our page or at [email protected].

07/05/2025

From Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen: “[A child’s rights] are not and should not be dependent solely on the wishes, much less the caprices, of [their] parents. [Their] welfare should not be subject to the parents’ say-so or mutual agreement alone. Where as in this case, the parents are already separated in fact, the courts must step in to determine in whose custody the child can better be assured the rights granted to them by the law,”

This was emphasized by the Senior Associate Justice as he penned the recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) Second Division, where it granted the petition of a father for temporary parental custody over his child, emphasizing that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the child’s best interest.

01/05/2025

We are still open until 5pm today. 😊

01/05/2025

JUST IN: The Supreme Court (SC) Second Division has ruled that testimonies from a spouse’s immediate family members and close friends can be sufficient proof of psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The high court declared as null and void the marriage of Jeffery A. Green and Rowena Manlutac Green due to the latter's psychological incapacity. Jeffery initiated the petition to nullify their marriage, arguing that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated.

As proof, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

The SC granted the petition, saying Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations. It noted that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse, as long as the totality of the evidence can prove that such incapacity existed at the time the marriage was solemnized.

"In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage," the SC said.

Address

Longos
Malolos
3000

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Calderon Law Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category