What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

https://www.facebook.com/171744553253169/

P. Abad Law and Co., 3/F Abad Centre Bloc, South Road , Ward-I, Minglanilla (2026)

24/01/2026

SUPREME COURT REVERSES DISMISSAL OF EX-NLRC COMMISSIONER DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION

The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the dismissal from service of former National Labor Relations Commission Commissioner Angelo Palaña and ordered the payment of his back wages and retirement benefits.

In a 17-page decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC En Banc granted Palaña's second motion for reconsideration assailing the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, which found him guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service.

The administrative case stemmed from the P100,000 deposit in Palaña’s bank account, which the complainant, Atty. Rebene Carrera alleged it was an unpaid loan that Palaña wanted to be “goodwill money.”

The Ombudsman found Palaña guilty of grave misconduct based on the deposit and the fact that a third party knew his bank account number when there was no reason to know this information. It dismissed Palaña from the service.

The said decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Initially, the Supreme Court also sustained the decision, prompting Palaña to file a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently dismissed.

Aggrieved, Palaña filed her second motion for reconsideration, citing Carrera’s disbarment in another case for gross immorality, which calls into question his credibility. In granting the second appeal, it explained that while usually a prohibited pleading, second motions for reconsideration may be allowed in the higher interest of justice if the ruling is shown to be legally erroneous and patently unjust.

The SC said the evidence against Palaña was insufficient and took judicial notice of its 2021 resolution where he was acquitted of the criminal case arising from the same incident.

“The Court finds that the finding of grave misconduct against him was tainted with arbitrariness to such a degree that he was inevitably denied due process. Thus, his dismissal from the service must be set aside,” the Supreme Court said.

It emphasized that the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office failed to show that Carrera deposited P100,000 in Palaña’s bank account at the latter’s behest and that this was done to perpetuate corruption.

The highest bench also took into consideration its ruling in the criminal case where it was found that the P100,000 was deposited by former NLRC Commissioner Nieves De Castro, who testified that it was payment for the jewelry she bought from Palaña’s wife, Shirley. The bank account was jointly held by Palaña and Shirley.

It underscored that the deposit had a legitimate purpose. While Carrera’s secretary issued an affidavit stating that she instructed an office staff member to deposit the P100,000 to Palaña’s account, there was no evidence that Palaña was aware of it and that the amount was intended as goodwill money for future cases before the NLRC.

The SC also noted that the staff member who allegedly made the actual deposit did not execute an affidavit as well. Thus, in the absence of any evidence that Palaña was aware of, and consented to, the deposit, it cannot be concluded that he committed a corrupt act that would render him administratively liable for grave misconduct.

It added that there is no civil service rule that punishes the mere deposit of money in the bank account of a public officer.

“On this score, there being a dearth of evidence to prove corruption, it was an error for the Ombudsman and the CA to rule Palaña liable for grave misconduct,” it said.

24/01/2026

SUPREME COURT DECLARES 94 GMA TALENTS AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES IN AN 11-YEAR LANDMARK CASE

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling that declared 94 talent workers of broadcast giant GMA Network as regular employees, not mere “independent contractors,” ending the group’s 11-year fight for separation pay and back wages.

In a ruling promulgated by the SC's Third Division, it found that the employees who are members of the Talent Association of GMA (TAG), mostly from the news and public affairs department had already acquired regular employment status and were illegally terminated from employment absent just cause.

The employees had been rendering essential work to GMA without attaining regular employment status for up to 15 years when they first took the matter before the National Labor Relations Commission in 2014. As contractual workers, they did not have access to SSS, Pag-IBIG, and PhilHealth benefits and did not have security of tenure.

Initially, the NLRC affirmed that the members were regular employees in 2015, which was eventually upheld by the Court of Appeals in 2019. This prompted GMA to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the appellate court's decision, the high court said that the existence of an employer-employee relationship between GMA and the employees is clear as broad daylight. It emphasized that it was unjust for the TV network to refuse to recognize them as regular employees.

The highest bench also acted in another petition filed by GMA on the illegal dismissal case that went in favor as well to the workers before the CA in 2020.

In partially granting the motion, it said that the respondents, whose contracts were either terminated or not renewed while awaiting resolution of the case, are entitled to reinstatement “without loss of seniority rights and other privileges,” citing “higher talent fees” and lack of “control” as they were bound only by the “Talent Agreement.”

The SC ordered GMA to pay the employees their full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, with computation “from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement.” But should reinstatement no longer be an option, the former employees shall be granted separation pay equivalent to one month’s pay for every year of their service to the company.

19/01/2026

AMBIGUITY IN LOAN CONTRACT MUST BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE BANK THAT CAUSED IT—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that ambiguity in the loan contract, particularly in the inclusion of the dragnet clause, should be taken against the bank, stressing that the latter cannot conveniently invoke dragnet clauses when their terms are ambiguous and no connection can be established between the original loan and the subsequent loan.

In a 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, the SC First Division reinstated the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision invalidating the application of the dragnet clause to the second loan purportedly obtained by spouses Wilson and Elsie Sademas through the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by spouses Gabriel and Luisa Duero.

The spouses Duero are the registered owners of a parcel of land subject to a title. In 2004, spouses Duero executed an SPA appointing spouses Sademas as attorneys-in-fact and authorized them to obtain a loan in an amount not exceeding Php550,000 from Green Bank of Caraga.

To secure the loan, Gabriel and spouse Sademas executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (REM) using the property as collateral in favor of Green Bank. In 2006, more than a year prior to the loan's maturity date, spouses Sademas paid the loan in full. However, despite repeated demands, Green Bank did not return the land title.

Three months after payment of the loan, Green Bank extended another loan (second loan) in the amount of Php150,000 to spouses Sademas, who in turn executed another promissory note.

On November 2, 2006, Green Bank filed an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of REM in view of spouses Sademas' failure to settle the second loan.

Spouses Duero opposed the foreclosure. They argued that the first loan had already been paid, making the subject REM extinguished, and the land title with its tax declaration should have been returned to them.

For its part, Green Bank claimed that while it is true that spouses Sadernas had already paid the first loan in full, the second loan they obtained using the same SPA and collateral remained unpaid despite repeated demands.

Subsequently, foreclosure proceedings ensued, and Green Bank emerged as the highest bidder of the subject property. The land title under the name of spouses Duero was then cancelled, and a new one was issued in the name of Green Bank. Aggrieved, spouses Duero filed a complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings.

The RTC ruled in spouses Duero favor, noting that since the first loan was already paid in full more than a year earlier than the due date, and the second loan was obtained thereafter, the subject REM could no longer be utilized to secure the second loan because it was deemed extinguished from the time the first loan was paid.

The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings. It noted that the "dragnet clause" stipulated in the subject REM expressly stated that it will secure future loans, which included the second loan in the amount of PHP 150,000. This paved the way for spouse Duero to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In ruling in their favor, the high court agreed with the RTC, emphasizing that by the time the second loan was obtained by the spouses Sademas, the first loan had already been fully paid. Consequently, the REM executed by the spouses Duero had already been extinguished upon payment of the original debt and could no longer cover the second loan.

It underscored that, as a general rule, a mortgage is constituted to secure a specific debt and will not be extended to cover subsequently incurred obligations unless such debts are of the same class or so related to the primary debt that the mortgagor’s assent may be inferred.

The highest bench defined the "blanket mortgage" or "dragnet clause" as a stipulation extending the coverage of a mortgage to advances or loans other than those already obtained or specified in the contract.

In this case, the subject REM contains the dragnet clause: "That as security for the payment of the loan or advance in the principal sum of [Php550,000] and such other loans or advances already obtained, or still to be obtained."

The high court rejected East West’s argument that the subject REM secured the second loan by virtue of a dragnet clause. While a REM may, in principle, secure future loans or advances, it held that the stipulation relied upon was too ambiguous considering that there was no specific clause stating that the second loan was secured by the prior mortgage, nor did the second promissory note expressly indicate that it was covered by the REM.

It underscored that absent such clear and unequivocal indications, the dragnet clause could not be enforced to secure the second loan, adding that Green Bank could have avoided the ambiguity had it exercised a little more prudence in drafting the instrument.

The SC said that since Green Bank drafted the contract and created the ambiguity, it should be construed prejudicially against the party that caused it.

03/01/2026

Supreme Court 2025 Yearender: Key Rulings Every Law Student and Citizen Should Know |

The Supreme Court closed 2025 with landmark decisions shaping fundamental rights, governance, criminal justice, family relations, labor, property, and the legal profession.

Below is a topic-by-topic guide to the most significant rulings of 2025, based on the official Supreme Court Yearender.

📌 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Right to Life, Liberty, and Security
* In Re: Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo (Henry V. Tayo, Jr.) – G.R. No. 265195
* Castro & Tamano v. Unknown Respondents – G.R. Nos. 269249 & 276602
* CHR v. Office of the Ombudsman – G.R. No. 257685
* A.M. No. 25-01-25-SC (Guidelines on jail decongestion)

Due Process / Criminal Justice
* People v. Enriquez – G.R. No. 264473
* Comamo v. People – G.R. No. 236548
* People v. Pereda (Kian delos Santos case) – G.R. Nos. 268510 & 274142
* People v. Acdang – G.R. No. 263341
* Aquino v. People (Plea bargaining) – G.R. No. 259094
* Ruiz v. People (Legal insanity) – G.R. No. 244692
* ### v. People (Social media account ownership) – G.R. No. 274842
* Fernando v. People (Witness retraction) – G.R. No. 259589
* People v. Consebido (Prescription of crimes) – G.R. No. 258563
* People v. Malacaman (Out-of-court identification) – G.R. No. 257098
* Vallacar Transit v. Yanson (Fugitive doctrine) – G.R. No. 259337

Freedom of Expression
* Abines, Jr. v. House of Representatives – G.R. No. 278101

🗳️ RIGHT TO SUFFRAGE & ELECTION LAW
* Matula v. COMELEC – G.R. No. 277784
* Sarigumba v. COMELEC – G.R. No. 263615
* Amutan v. COMELEC – G.R. No. 266331
* Erice v. COMELEC – G.R. No. 277608
* Macabuhay v. People – G.R. No. 270337
* Macalintal v. Senate (Barangay term law) – G.R. Nos. E-02002 et al.

🏛️ SEPARATION OF POWERS
* Guo v. Senate Committee – G.R. No. 274351
* Ong v. Senate Tricomm – G.R. No. 275469
* In Re: Habeas Corpus of Ryanh Dolor – G.R. No. 279692
* Duterte v. House of Representatives (Impeachment) – G.R. Nos. 278353 & 278359

🧑‍⚖️ ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
* Heirs of Ligot v. Republic – G.R. Nos. 257827 et al.
* Bagbagen v. Perez (Salary garnishment) – G.R. No. 274980
* Philippine Guarantee Corp. v. COA – G.R. No. 256709
* People v. Estregan – G.R. No. 248699
* People v. Reyes (Malversation) – G.R. No. 260030

👩‍👧 SOCIAL WELFARE, VAWC, CHILD PROTECTION
* Migrante International v. SSS – G.R. No. 248680
* Caridaoan v. People – G.R. No. 228741
* ###264870 v. People (Infidelity ≠ VAWC) – G.R. No. 264870
* People v. Scully – G.R. No. 270174
* People v. ABC260708 (Rape terminology) – G.R. No. 260708

💍 MARRIAGE & FAMILY LAW
* Boado v. Galvez-Boado – G.R. No. 263627
* Maliwat-Melad v. Melad – G.R. No. 267998
* Bonbon v. People (Bigamy prescription) – G.R. No. 272844
* Anido v. Republic (Foreign divorce) – G.R. No. 253527
* Republic v. Tangarorang (Legitimacy of children) – G.R. No. 272006

🧑‍🏭 LABOR LAW
* Aragones v. Alltech Biotechnology – G.R. No. 251736
* Amor v. Constant Packaging – G.R. No. 259988
* Nalica III v. Jebsen Maritime – G.R. No. 272550

💼 ECONOMY, BANKING & CORPORATE LAW
* Shell Philippines Exploration v. COA – G.R. Nos. 238846 et al.
* Antonino v. BDO – G.R. Nos. 273446 & 273493
* Eastwest Rural Bank v. PNP-ACG – G.R. No. 273720
* Dee v. Union Bank – G.R. No. 251180

🏠 LAND, PROPERTY & CONTRACTS
* Ocampo v. Batara-Sapad – G.R. No. 256343
* Spouses Agullo v. Victa-Espinosa – G.R. No. 269921
* Phinma Property Holdings v. Rivera – G.R. No. 261877
* Azurin, Jr. v. Chua – G.R. No. 259662

⚖️ BENCH, BAR & JUDICIAL REFORMS
* CPRA, Code of Judicial Conduct & Court Personnel Code – A.M. Nos. 25-04-04-SC & 25-06-11-SC
* Electronic Filing & e-Notarization Rules – A.M. Nos. 25-05-16-SC & 24-10-14-SC
* Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) – A.M. No. 22-11-01-SC
* JIB v. Judge Tomarong – A.M. No. RTJ-25-085

These rulings reflect the Supreme Court’s direction on rights protection, accountability, digital justice, and social realities—critical knowledge for law students, practitioners, and an informed public.

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2025, Website, link in the comment section.

28/12/2025

FAILURE TO CONDUCT IMMEDIATE POST-ARREST INVENTORY FATAL TO INTEGRITY OF DRUG EVIDENCE—SUPREME COURT

| The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted two persons accused of selling illegal drugs due to the failure of the arresting officers to immediately conduct an inventory of the evidence upon confiscation, emphasizing that it is fatal to the integrity of the chain of custody.

In a 17-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the SC's First Division granted the appeal of James Williams and Joy Montecillo, who challenged their criminal conviction by the Court of Appeals for violation of Section 5 (selling of illegal drugs) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Williams and Montecillo were charged in 2012 for the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

The arresting officers testified that they were able to entrap Williams and Montecillo after a transaction was done. The suspects were caught in the act of receiving Php100,000.00 in boodle money in exchange for a transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which later confirmed as shabu.

At around 7:30 p.m., the arresting officers marked the seized drug evidence, which was documented through photographs showing, in a single frame, the arresting officers together with the confiscated drug evidence.

The buy-bust team did not immediately conduct the required inventory citing darkness and safety concerns due to growing number of people at the arrest site. Instead, they decided to bring the seized items to their PDEA office in Quezon City. But because of heavy traffic, the officers arrived at the PDEA office only at around 9:00 p.m., where they subsequently conducted the inventory of the seized drug item.

Meanwhile, Williams and Montecillo denied the accusations by claiming that the shabu recovered from their possessions was planted.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty, which was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court emphasized that the prosecution was able to provide all the facts necessary to establish adherence to the chain of custody rule.

This paved the way for Williams and Montecillo to elevate the case before the Supreme Court. In granting their appeal, the high court stressed the importance of complying with the chain of custody rule in drug cases.

It found that the arresting officers breached the first chain by not conducting the inventory and marking of the seized dangerous drugs immediately upon confiscation.

The SC highlighted that marking and photographing of the seized items at the place of arrest cannot be considered as compliant with the chain of custody, as the arresting officers failed to exert earnest efforts to ensure the presence of the three insulating witnesses: (1) an elected public official, (2) a DOJ representative, and (3) a media representative to witness the photographing of the seized items.

It added that the buy-bust team's failure to immediately conducting an inventory of the seized items upon confiscation at the place of arrest of Williams and Monticello is a fatal breach in the chain of custody.

The SC rejected the arguments of the arresting officer contending that their failure to immediately conduct inventory was due to the growing number of people at the place where the items were seized, emphasizing that such an excuse does not constitute a justification for such a major failure.

"Considering the unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, the Court finds that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised. This warrants the acquittal of the accused-appellant," the Supreme Court said.

"The Court notes that Williams died on July 7, 2020, pending appeal of the case with the CA. Thus, in view of his supervening death prior to his final conviction, the present criminal case against him must be
dismissed." it added.

19/09/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that being irresponsible in doing household chores and taking care of children may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

In a 13-page decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between Arnold Alfonso and Michelle Pamintuan-Alfonso on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Arnold and Michelle were high school classmates. In 1997, or eight years after their graduation, they unexpectedly met. Since then, they have become close and regularly exchanged phone calls.

Despite being in a relationship with another man, Michelle often visited Arnold's apartment. Later on Michelle and Arnold spent the night at the latter's apartment, where the two engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse that resulted in Michelle's unexpected and unwanted pregnancy.

At first, Michelle was contemplating aborting the child, but Arnold convinced her otherwise and offered marriage. After the wedding, Michelle and Arnold resided at the parental house. They were blessed with three children.

A year later their relationship turned sour. Arnold noticed the changes in Michelle's behavior. Michelle would be verbally aggressive towards him, crying loudly to gain sympathy from their neighbors. She also refused to do household chores or care for their children, instead relying on her mother to fulfill her domestic responsibilities.

Arnold also observed that Michelle has a luxurious lifestyle, which caused her to obtain looming debts from various people. It reached the extent that Arnold's father paid Michelle's debt to save her from being sued.

Over time, Arnold felt Michelle's growing coldness towards him. Michelle disavowed fulfilling his sexual needs by making excuses that she is tired and not in the mood.

Sometime in 2010, Michelle informed Arnold that she had secured a job that required deployment to Bicol for one month. However, to his surprise, Arnold later learned that Michelle was having an affair with another man. Since then, Michelle has refused to communicate with him and their children.

This paved the way for Arnold to file a petition for nullification of their marriage on the ground of Michelle's psychological incapacity to fulfill her marital obligations.

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and nullified their marriage, but it was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. This prompted Arnold to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In granting Arnold's petition, the high court held that he was able to illustrate that the incapacity of Michelle was so grave or serious that it already impaired her from carrying out the required ordinary marital duties. It gave credence to the psychological report, which diagnosed Michelle with histrionic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

The SC also emphasized that the incapacity of Michelle was incurable, as the pattern of persistent failure to assume her essential marital obligations was proven. It also took into account the instance where Michelle entered into an illicit affair with another man.

“In every marriage lies the vinculum juris—the juridical bond that unites the spouses in a legally and morally binding union governed by law. This vinculum juris imposes upon each spouse the essential marital obligations of mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support,” the Supreme Court said.

“Thus, in the present case, we hold that Michelle's psychological incapacity existed prior to and during the celebration of the marriage; the vinculum juris is deemed never to have validly arisen,” it added.

18/09/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred a lawyer previously disbarred for filing numerous baseless complaints to harass the other party in one of the pending cases he handles and for making unfounded accusations of bribery against an RTC judge.

In an 11-page ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC En Banc has found Atty. Berteni Causing guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The case stemmed from the administrative complaints filed by Dr. Joyce Hidalgo alleging that Atty. Causing violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Dr. Hidalgo claimed that Atty. Causing deliberately refused to comply with several court decisions that had attained finality by allegedly filing numerous malicious, unfounded, and baseless complaints against her and other government officials and a disbarment complaint against her lawyer to supposedly secure leverage in a pending case and convince them to yield.

These cases were ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, and the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao. Dr. Hidalgo also alleged that Atty. Causing charged an RTC presiding judge of administrative complaints for allegedly receiving a P16 million bribe from Dr. Hidalgo in exchange for issuing a favorable judgment.

This prompted Dr. Hidalgo to file a disbarment complaint against Atty. Causing for violating the Lawyer's Oath and multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility by perpetuating falsehoods and filing multiple baseless cases.

Meanwhile, in his response Atty. Causing denied the allegations, saying he had no participation in most of the cases mentioned.

Initially, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended that Atty. Causing be sternly warned and reprimanded for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On March 18, 2022, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors modified the recommendation of IBP-CBD by increasing the recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for one year.

In finding Atty. Causing guilty, the high court held that he violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which require lawyers to refrain from filing or causing to be filed frivolous or baseless cases against lawyers and government officers, including judges.

The SC noted that the administrative case he filed against the RTC judge was immaterial to his suit before the Office of the Ombudsman. It held that filing a dubious complaint is an unethical act that undermined the integrity of the legal profession.

It emphasized that this act was not only indicative of his lack of respect for the judiciary but also reveals his failure to uphold the principles of honesty and fairness, which proves that he is unfit to practice law.

In determining the proper penalty, the SC took into account the fact that Atty. Causing has been disciplined twice within the last four years and is, in fact, disbarred.

It said that Atty. Causing exhibited grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, which is a serious offense under Section 33(i) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, and imposed on him the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

"Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same," the Supreme Court said.

However, in view of his existing disbarment, the high court said that the present penalty of disbarment can no longer be imposed but should nonetheless be considered should he apply for reinstatement.

10/09/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that the donation of subdivision land to a local government unit (LGU) must be in writing and acceptance must be in the same deed or a separate instrument for ownership to be transferred.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division ruled that the Quezon City (QC) LGU failed to establish that the open spaces and road lots in Capital Park Homes Subdivision (CPHS) had been donated to the city for public use as it was not able to show a copy of any deed of donation as well as any proof of acceptance of such donation.

Rainier L. Madrid, a resident of subdivision behind CPHS and QC taxpayer, filed a petition to determine the nature and ownership of open spaces and road lots of CPHS. Originally intended for the exclusive use of CPHS homeowners, these properties have become accessible to the public.

Madrid alleged that the QC LGU use substantial public funds for the improvement of these properties while they were privately owned. He pointed out that VV Soliven, CPHS’ developer, failed to present proof that the properties had been donated to the QC LGU. He stressed that without proof of donation, the properties remain private and cannot be treated as public property.

The QC LGU maintained that under QC Ordinance No. 5852, series of 1964, subdivisions must dedicate 6% of their total open spaces for public use and turn these over to the city before any subdivision plan can be approved. It noted that CPHS’ subdivision plan was approved in August 1969, indicating that CPHS had complied with the ordinance.

Capital Park Homeowners Association, Inc. (CPHAI) admitted the absence of deed of donation but cited a board resolution stating that the properties were donated to the QC LGU.

CPHAI also questioned Madrid’s standing to file the petition, as he was allegedly not directly affected.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition for lack of cause of action and declared Madrid as not a real party-in-interest.

The Court of Appeals (CA) disagreed and recognized Madrid’s right to file the case since he could be affected by the alleged misuse of public funds. It held that the areas in question remain private property as there was no proof that the subdivision developer had donated them to the QC LGU.

The SC upheld the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that the QC LGU must prove a valid transfer of property in its favor. However, the LGU did not provide a deed of donation or any proof of acceptance, as required under the Civil Code.

The SC clarified that open spaces and road lots in subdivisions do not automatically become government property. LGUs cannot rely solely on ordinances or laws to claim ownership. A written donation is required to transfer ownership. Without it, the property remains private and cannot be claimed by the local government.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/499tc8hm

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/bde7hv7u

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

P. Abad Law and Co.

24/01/2026

24/01/2026

19/01/2026

03/01/2026

28/12/2025

19/09/2025

18/09/2025

10/09/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm