Amen Gonzaga & Partners

04/09/2025

𝐂𝐘𝐁𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐈𝐏𝐒 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐑𝐘𝐏𝐓𝐎 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐍𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆:
Avoid Public WI-FI.

12/03/2025

Your day, your vibe. Wishing our brilliant 𝙎𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙇𝙖𝙬 𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧 a day filled with joy. Here’s to celebrating you! 🎉

11/03/2025

⚖️ 𝙉𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚?

Book a consultation with us today! Scan the QR code to get started.

10/03/2025

The has taken an important step towards modernizing legal processes by approving the Rules on Electronic Notarization (E-Notarization Rules) – a significant reform that leverages technology to make notarial services more accessible and efficient nationwide.

Under A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the E-Notarization Rules and the Guidelines on the Accreditation of Electronic Notarization Facility Providers (Accreditation Guidelines). These rules introduce Electronic Notaries Public (ENPs), who are authorized to perform notarial acts for individuals located anywhere in the Philippines and, in certain cases, even abroad.

This expanded jurisdiction addresses a key limitation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules), where traditional notaries public were restricted to performing notarizations only within their territorial jurisdiction. By allowing ENPs to provide services across the country, the new rules ensure greater accessibility, particularly for those in remote or underserved areas.

The updated framework enables 3 forms of electronic notarization:
- In-Person Electronic Notarization (both principals and witnesses must be physically present)
- Remote Electronic Notarization (principals and witnesses may connect virtually to ENP via videoconferencing)
- Mixed In-Person and Remote

To enhance security, the E-Notarization Rules implements Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) such as facial recognition, biometrics, and one-time passwords, in compliance with regulations set by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The integrity of the electronic notarial book, or the register showing the chronological record of electronic notarial acts, is also safeguarded against tampering. Additionally, all data stored in the ENFs are protected under the Data Privacy Act.

The E-Notarization Rules applies exclusively to electronic documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) or Portable Document Format Archival (PDF/A). Paper documents with handwritten signatures, notarial wills, and depositions will continue to follow the 2004 Notarial Rules.

A part of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), this initiative aligns with the Supreme Court’s commitment to innovation and expanded access to justice by allowing notarization for electronic documents, including remote notarization through accredited software applications. This reform supplements the traditional mode of notarization under the 2004 Notarial Rules and marks a key milestone in the Court’s ongoing digital transformation.

The E-Notarization Rules takes effect 15 days after its publication on March 9, 2025.

Read the press release in full at https://tinyurl.com/5e9e7h4a.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, Rules on Electronic Notarization, at https://tinyurl.com/55zvmbrf.

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

10/03/2025

⚖️ 𝗦𝗖 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 | 6 March 2025
SC: Land Buyers Must Check Both Title and Registry of Deeds Records

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check.../.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.
Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

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

11/02/2025

𝗗𝗔𝗣𝗔𝗧 𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗠 𝗠𝗢: Philippine National ID

📜 The Philippine National ID is a valid government-issued ID that must be accepted by all establishments, public or private, under Republic Act No. 11055.

✋ If an establishment refuses to accept your National ID because it lacks a signature, you have the right to report it. It’s your ID, and they must honor it!

⚖ Need help with your rights?
Contact us for consultation now!

Source: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/85056

07/02/2025

⚖️ 𝗦𝗖 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 | 7 February 2025

SC: Extrajudicial Demand Not Required Before Judicial Foreclosure

Read the full text of the Press Release at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-extrajudicial-demand-not-required-before-judicial-foreclosure/.

Read the full text of the Decision at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268143-2/.

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office

The has reiterated that extrajudicial demand is not required before an action for judicial foreclosure can be resorted to, unless required by law or agreed upon by the parties.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division granted the petition of Goldland Tower Condominium Corporation which challenged the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of its action for judicial foreclosure due to the absence of demand.

Goldland filed the complaint against the former registered owner of a condominium unit and its subsequent owner. Goldland demanded for payment of the principal sum of PHP 4,362,208.14, representing the unpaid association dues, and in case of default, for foreclosure of the encumbrance over the condominium unit in accordance with Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.

The Court held that “as soon a debt becomes due, the creditor gains not only the right to demand—judicially or extrajudicially—its payment or fulfillment from the debtor. In addition, the creditor becomes entitled to the right to initiate foreclosure of the security as payment."

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-extrajudicial-demand-not-required-before-judicial-foreclosure/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268143-2.

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

07/02/2025

⚖️ 𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗡 𝗚𝗢𝗡𝗭𝗔𝗚𝗔 & 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗦 – 𝘛𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳.

☎️ (02) 8548 8893
📱 0930 251 5818
📧 [email protected]
📍 Unit 219, Tower 1, Cityland Vito Cruz, P. Ocampo St., Brgy. 719, Malate Manila 1004

06/12/2024

⚖️ 𝗦𝗖 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 | December 3, 2024

SC: Chat Logs, Videos May Be Used as Evidence in Criminal Cases

Read the full text of the press release at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-chat-logs-videos-may-be.../

Read the full text of the Decision at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/263603-people-of-the.../

The Supreme Court reiterated that using online chat logs and videos as evidence does not violate the right to privacy if they are used to determine if a crime has been committed.

The Court upheld the conviction of a man for qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003, finding that the videos and recordings of the chat logs of his conversations with an undercover agent can be admitted as evidence.

The Court rejected the accused’s arguments that they were inadmissible for violating his privacy rights. Republic Act No. 10173, or the Data Privacy Act of 2012, allows the processing of sensitive personal information to determine a person’s criminal liability and to protect the rights and interests of persons in court proceedings.

As the chat logs and videos were submitted as evidence to assess his criminal liability for qualified trafficking, his right to privacy was not violated.

The Court emphasized that the videos and chat logs were presented as evidence to show the accused’s method of reaching out to foreigners through Skype or Facebook and offering minors for sexual exploitation.

The Decision is from the Supreme Court’s Second Division, written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.

Read the full text of the press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-chat-logs-videos-may-be-used-as-evidence-in-criminal-cases/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/263603-people-of-the-philippines-vs-eul-vincent-o-rodriguez/



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

04/12/2024

⚖️ 𝗦𝗖 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦 | November 27, 2024

SC: Child Abuse Case Can Still Be Tried Even If Victim Cannot Testify in Court

Read the full text of the Press Release:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-child-abuse-case-can-still-be-tried-even-if-victim-cannot-testify-in-court/

Read the full text of the Decision:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/258054-people-of-the-philippines-vs-###258054/

The Supreme Court reiterated that child abuse cases can still be tried even when child victims are unable to testify in court, in accordance with the doctrine of unavailable child under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.

A father challenged his conviction of qualified r**e against his minor daughter since she was not able to testify in court. Instead, her sworn statement given out of court, together with the medico-legal report and testimonies from relatives, were presented by the prosecution.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the child victim’s out-of-court statements are allowed under the doctrine of unavailable child.

Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness allows the admission of hearsay testimony of a child describing child abuse when: (1) the child is unavailable due to death, physical disability, lack of memory, or mental illness; possible exposure to psychological injury; or lack of reasonable means; and (2) their hearsay testimony is supported by other evidence.

Section 28 aims to prevent miscarriages of justice by allowing child abuse cases to proceed even if the child victim is unavailable. The Court recognized that vulnerable children may be pressured to avoid attending hearings to prevent them from testifying. Additionally, some child victims may be too traumatized to give their testimony.

To assess the reliability of an unavailable child's testimony, the Court evaluates several factors, including the child's character, the number of people who heard the statement, whether the statement was spontaneous and if there was any motive to lie, as well as the timing of the statement.

The Decision was from the Supreme Court’s Second Division, written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.

Read the full text of the Press Release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-child-abuse-case-can-still-be-tried-even-if-victim-cannot-testify-in-court/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/258054-people-of-the-philippines-vs-###258054/



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

28/11/2024

Wishing our elegant and brilliant 𝙎𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙇𝙖𝙬 𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧 a day as inspiring and exceptional as she is. Here's to celebrating you!🎉