L V M H J D Law

06/11/2025

Our firm stands with those affected by the recent typhoon. To assist in recovery, we are offering free notarization of basic documents for all typhoon victims.

Visit our office or message us for details. Let’s rebuild together.

03/11/2025

⚠️ NOTICE

In consideration of the severe weather forecast associated with Typhoon Tino, and to ensure the safety and well-being of our personnel and clients, please be advised that our law office will be closed on Monday, November 3, and Tuesday, November 4, 2025.

We will suspend all in-person operations during this time. We anticipate resuming normal business operations once weather conditions have stabilized.

For urgent legal matters that require immediate attention, please utilize existing email or messenger. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.

Stay dry and stay safe.

21/10/2025

The OSG now conducts an assessment first to check whether there is a basis to challenge the RTC rulings before the Court of Appeals.

Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said the Office of the Solicitor General no longer automatically appeals annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage cases granted by regional trial courts, and conducts an assessment first to determine whether a ruling should be challenged.

28/08/2025

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/.

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

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

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, 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.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that 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.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yeapyzcd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

05/05/2025

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division granted the petition filed by Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto (Jeffrey) and his parents (collectively, the petitioners), and sent the case back to the Family Court for proper proceedings.

The case involved Jeffrey and Sheena Olpoc Cabrillos (Sheena), who had a child together in 2013. After living together in Jeffrey’s family home in Davao City, the couple separated. Sheena moved with the child to her parents’ home in Cotabato City, while Jeffrey continued to maintain contact and would host the child during vacations.

In 2020, the child’s visit to Jeffrey was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown. However, even after restrictions were lifted, Jeffrey refused to return the child to Sheena. Despite efforts by the police and a social worker, the child chose to remain with him.

The parents later signed a barangay agreement stating that Jeffrey would return the child after the school year ended in April 2021. But when April came, Jeffrey still did not comply. Sheena filed a complaint with the police and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Family Court.

The Family Court issued the writ, ordering the petitioners to appear and bring the child to court. Upon the return of the writ, the judge held a closed-door conference with only the parents, who agreed that Sheena would have custody of the child by July 2021. The Family Court adopted their agreement in an order and terminated the case.

However, the petitioners objected, insisting that the court should have conducted a full trial to determine the child’s best interest. They appealed to the Court of Appeals, which agreed to reopen the case but still upheld the parents’ agreement as a provisional custody arrangement.

Dissatisfied, the petitioners brought the case to the SC, arguing that the mere agreement between the parents before trial cannot determine the issue of a child’s custody.

Ruling in their favor, the SC stressed that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child’s appearance in court.

Trial courts must carefully consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if (1) the petitioner has a legal right to custody; (2) the child is being kept from them by the other party; and (3) being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.

The SC found that the Family Court failed to evaluate these factors, relying solely on the parents’ agreement without conducting a case study or assessing parental fitness.

The SC held that compromise agreements between parents as to a child’s custody are frowned upon. Courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the child’s rights and welfare are protected:

“[A child’s rights] are not and should not be dependent solely on the wishes, much less the whims and 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 law.“

01/05/2025

This Labor Day, we celebrate more than hard work—we honor the legal victories that uplift and protect our workers. As penned by the Supreme Court in a number of cases decided —— “Workers are the backbone of our country, and their rights are non-negotiable.”

Cheers to the hardwork, dedication, and resilence of every Filipino workers everywhere. Happy Labor’s Day everyone. 🇵🇭

29/04/2025

The Supreme Court (SC) has held Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. (Mother Goose School) civilly liable for negligence after a bullying incident led to the assault of a student during class.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division found the school failed to address a punching incident involving three grade school students inside one of its classrooms.
During a computer class, two students repeatedly punched a classmate while the teacher was in the comfort room. Despite the victim reporting the incident to his teachers, no meaningful action was taken.

When the victim’s parents raised the matter with the school, their complaints were ignored, prompting them to file formal requests for investigation. The school ultimately concluded the incident was mere “teasing” or “rough play” and took no disciplinary action. Dissatisfied, the parents filed a complaint for damages against the school, the teachers, and the other students’ fathers.

The SC affirmed the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that schools have a contractual obligation to ensure a safe learning environment.

“[N]o student can absorb the intricacies of physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm of the arts and other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades exploding in the air.”

The SC reiterated that schools must maintain peace and order within their premises, and even outside campus during school activities. They may avoid liability only upon proof they exercised due diligence.
Mother Goose School was found negligent for its lack of proper protocols, failure to inform the victim’s parents promptly, and inaccuracies in its investigation.

“Notably, every parent who entrusts their child to a learning institution does so with the assurance that the school, owing to its obligation not only to provide but also to maintain a safe learning environment, will protect the child from harm or will promptly address similar incidents after its occurrence.”

For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 267331 (Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. v. Spouses Palaganas and Villa Palaganas, January 20, 2025) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/267331-mother-goose-special-school-system-inc-vs-spouses-samuel-palaganas-and-villa-palaganas

-From Supreme Court PH press release.

21/04/2025

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division upheld the order to demolish various illegal structures along Matabungkay Beach in Lian, Batangas. The structures were built without permits from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

The owners of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay Beach (resort owners) filed a case against Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim (Calimlims), who had operated informal structures along the beach for over 50 years. The resort owners claimed the structures were built without the necessary permits and disrupted their business and inconvenienced guests, leading to financial losses. In their defense, the Calimlims argued they had been using the land long before the resort’s establishment and had no intention of disturbing anyone.

The Court of Appeals (CA) declared the illegal structures to be a public nuisance and ordering their demolition along with the payment of damages to the resort owners.
Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, a nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, or condition that: (1) harms people’s health or safety; (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks or violates decency or morality; (4) blocks public roads or waterways; or (5) interferes with the use of property. A nuisance is considered public when it affects a number of persons or interferes with a public right by directly encroaching on public property or causing a common injury.

The SC agreed with the CA, finding that the structures were built on public foreshore land without the required lease agreement from the DENR.

According to DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24, in relation to the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141, foreshore lands may be disposed of only through a lease agreement with the DENR. The Calimlims’ lease application was denied by the DENR, making their occupation and use of the land unauthorized. The DENR acknowledged this illegal occupancy and issued Notices to Vacate, which the Calimlims ignored. The SC ruled that their obstruction of and unauthorized occupation and use of the foreshore land equate to a public nuisance.

For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 272053 (Spouses Pablo Calimlim v. Goño, January 14, 2025) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/272053-spouses-pablo-calimlim-and-patnubay-isla-calimlim-represented-by-bienvenido-i-calimlim-and-roberto-b-cabral-vs-efren-g-gono-and-rafaelita-r-gono/

16/04/2025

Regular office hours will resume on Monday, April 21, 2025 from 9:00am to 5:00pm. Have a blessed and meaningful Holy Week.

📍 2nd Floor, FC Quad Bldg, SB Cabahug Street, Ibabao-Estancia, Mandaue City

15/04/2025

𝐌𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐔𝐌 𝐂𝐈𝐑𝐂𝐔𝐋𝐀𝐑 𝐍𝐎. 𝟖𝟏, 𝐬. 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓

𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐦 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐍𝐨. 𝟖𝟏, 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤-𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦-𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞 (𝐖𝐅𝐇) 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟖:𝟎𝟎 𝐀𝐌 𝐭𝐨 𝟏𝟐:𝟎𝟎 𝐏𝐌 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐥 𝟏𝟔, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓.

𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟏𝟐:𝟎𝟎 𝐏𝐌 𝐨𝐧𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐖𝐅𝐇 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬.

Visit the Official Gazette website: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/ntwLV7