Atty. Danilo dela Bajan

02/04/2026

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐲, 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠; 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟑, 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝟏𝟏𝟔 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝.

𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝, “𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐩𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲.”

22/03/2026

𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝—𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬—𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐛 𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨, 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬𝐤: 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡, 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐝?

03/03/2026

HINDI. Hindi maaaring magpakasal si Basha kay Danny sa simbahang Katolika.

Kung ang isang binyagang Katoliko ay nagpakasal sa simbahan, ang kasal na ito ay nagkakaroon ng dalawang epekto: ang civil bond at ang sacramental o canonical bond. Samakatuwid, ang mag-asawang ikinasal sa simbahang Katolika ay pinag-iisa sang-ayon sa batas na sibil ng Pilipinas at batas na kanonikal ng Simbahang Katolika.

Kung nagkataon na napawalang-bisa ng isang hukumang sibil ang kasal ni Popoy at Basha, hindi nangangahulugan na ang kanonikal na aspeto ng kanilang kasal ay napawalang-bisa na rin.

Ang pagpapawalang-bisa ng isang kasal sa Simbahang Katolika ay nasasaklaw ng dalawang batas: ang Family Code of the Philippines na sumasaklaw sa aspetong sibil at ang Code of Canon Law na sumasaklaw sa aspetong kanonikal.

Kung napawalang-bisa man ang aspetong sibil ng kasal ni Popoy at Basha sang-ayon sa Family Code of the Philippines, kailangang litisin muna at suriin din sa hukumang kanonikal ng Simbahang Katolika ang kanilang pagsasama kung may sapat na dahilan sang-ayon sa Code of Canon Law na maipawalang bisa ito.

Pansamantala at habang hindi pa napapawalang bisa ng hukumang kanonikal ang naunang kasal ni Basha, hindi pa sya pwedeng magpakasal kay Danny sa simbahang Katolika.

AMEN. 😁

02/03/2026

PIERCING V. REVERSE-PIERCING
Notes on Commercial Law #1

Piercing and reverse-piercing are both exceptions to the rule that since a corporation possesses a separate and distinct juridical personality, one cannot go beyond that personality and reach for assets other than those belonging to the corporation itself.

In both these piercing actions, the doctrine of separate and juridical personality is disregarded and assets other than those belonging to the corporation or the corporate insider are allowed to satisfy claims against the corporation or the corporate insider.

Nevertheless, to disregard the separate and distinct personality doctrine, certain conditions must be present. Courts do not usually disturb the separate personality of the corporation unless the same is used to defeat public convenience, or the same is used to perpetuate fraud or when the corporation is a mere alter ego of the corporate insider or another corporate entity.

In piercing, the plaintiff seeks to reach for the assets of the corporate insider to satisfy claims against the corporation. In reverse piercing, the plaintiff seeks to reach for the assets of the corporation to satisfy claims against the corporate insider.

ATTY. DANILO DELA BAJAN
“In the conduct of every ordinary human affair,
there is almost always a law that governs it.”

02/03/2026

IS IT NECESSARY IN A PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE FOR THE PETITIONER-SPOUSE TO ALLEGE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF THE OTHER SPOUSE?

NO. In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, it is not necessary that the petitioner-spouse alleges the psychological incapacity of the other spouse. In fact, the petitioner-spouse may petition a marriage to be declared null and void based on his or her own psychological incapacity.

In the case of Boado v. Galvez-Boado (G.R. No. 263627, 04 November 2024), the Supreme Court held that the marriage of the spouses Boado was null and void on the ground of the psychological incapacity of the spouse who was in fact the petitioner in the case.

Thus, it is not necessary that the petitioner spouse alleges incapacity on the part of the opposite spouse. What is necessary is for either or both of the spouses to be proven psychologically incapacitated to nullify the marriage based on said ground.

Send a message to learn more