P. Abad Law and Co.

P. Abad Law and Co. Notary Public • Attorneys-At-Law

01/08/2026

SC: ONLY RIVER ACCRETIONS BELONG TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS; SEASHORE ACCRETIONS REMAIN STATE PROPERTY

The Supreme Court has clarified that land gradually formed by the current of a river may become the property of the adjoining landowner, but land formed along the seashore remains owned by the State. The distinction lies in Article 457 of the Civil Code, which grants ownership only over alluvial deposits received along the banks of rivers. The law does not extend the same privilege to deposits formed along the seashore, which continue to form part of the public domain.

READ: [https://dlsurf.com/.1006/sc-only-river-accretions-belong-to-private-landowners-seashore-accretions-remain-state-property]

24/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

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

09/07/2026

SUPREME COURT HOLDS TORRENS TITLE PREVAILS OVER TAX DECLARATION IN RECOVERY OF POSSESSION CASE

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that a Torrens title prevails over a tax declaration in determining the better right to possess real property, reiterating that a certificate of title constitutes conclusive evidence of ownership, while a tax declaration is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership.

"Age-old is the rule that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears. It is a conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein. Compared with a tax declaration, which is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership, a Torrens title is a conclusive evidence of ownership...

The case being for recovery of possession, the issue to be resolved is who has the better right to possess the property. It has been settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession. The person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof... To reiterate, a tax declaration is not a proof of ownership but a mere proof of a claim of ownership."

-GAERLAN, J.

Supreme Court, Second Division
August 4, 2021.

READ: [https://dlsurf.com/l/z2n6q0q]

09/07/2026

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS TWO MEN OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING; LAYS DOWN STANDARD FOR PROVING ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN ILLEGAL GAMBLING OPERATIONS

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men previously convicted of illegal gambling after ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they actually participated in a game of cara y cruz.

According to the Court, arresting officers must not merely testify that they saw persons gathered around a gambling activity. They must clearly and specifically testify on the details of the gambling operation, including: (1) the particular gambling game being played; (2) the identity of the person administering or facilitating the bets; x x x

-LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Supreme Court, Second Division
February 03, 2025

Learn more in the comments section.

09/07/2026

SUPREME COURT: UNMARKED EVIDENCE MAY STILL BE ADMITTED DURING TRIAL UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE

The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that while documentary and object evidence must generally be identified and pre-marked during pre-trial, trial courts may admit evidence not previously marked if the party shows good cause for its late presentation.

'The rule is that no evidence shall be allowed during trial if it was not identified and pre-marked during trial. This provision, however, allows for an exception: when allowed by the court for good cause shown. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what may constitute "good cause," though this Court has previously defined it as any substantial reason "that affords a legal excuse." '

-LEONEN, SAJ.

Supreme Court, Third Division
December 07, 2020

05/07/2026

SC Clarifies Rules on Ex*****on by Motion of Final Judgments

The Supreme Court has clarified the rules governing the ex*****on by motion of final and executory judgments, emphasizing that once a judgment becomes final, its ex*****on is a matter of right, and the trial court has the ministerial duty to issue the corresponding writ of ex*****on.

"We ruled that once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right, and the judgment debtor need not be given advance notice of the application for ex*****on... Absence of such advance notice to the judgment debtor does not constitute an infringement of the constitutional guarantee of due process."

-MENDOZA, J.

Supreme Court, Third Division
January 25, 2012

20/06/2026

SC: Contractual Interest Must Be Included in Determining Court Jurisdiction

"Since the interest on the loan is a primary and inseparable component of the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto, and already determinable at the time of filing of the Complaint, it must be included in the determination of which court has the jurisdiction."

-Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan

Supreme Court, Second Division
November 17, 2021

24/05/2026

IS PARTITION OF COMMON PROPERTIES A PRE-REQUISITE TO DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE?

Here are the commonly-asked questions on property relations in respect to void marriages:

1) Do void marriages have a property regime?

No. When the marriage is void, the parties do not have a property regime. “Void marriages are no marriages. Thus, the provisions of the Family Code on property relations between husband and wife- the systems of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, and separation of property- do not apply in disposing of properties that may have been acquired during the parties’ cohabitation.”(Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021).

2) What governs property relations of couples in a void marriage?

The rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code. “Pertinently, the rules on co-ownership, in relation to Article 147 of the Family Code, govern the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the common properties of spouses, whose marriage is declared void under Article 36 of the same Code.” (Chan Tee Ten v. Tee Ten, G.R. No. 259322, August 6, 2025)

3) How can couples in a void marriage partition their commonly-acquired properties?

What governs the liquidation of properties owned in common by couples in a void marriage are the rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled that the property relations of parties in a void marriage during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. The rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the spouses should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code, “[p]artition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. x x x.” It is not necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage. (Diño v. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011).

4) May the decree of absolute nullity of marriage be issued even without prior liquidation of common properties of couples in a void marriage?

Yes. As a consequence, “the decree of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be issued upon finality of the trial court’s decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.” (Diño v. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011).

5) Is partition required before a marriage can be declared void by the court?

No. It is also settled that it is not necessary to liquidate the common properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36. (Chan Tee Ten v. Tee Ten, G.R. No. 259322, August 6, 2025) In a more recent case, it was concluded that “Thus, the Court finds no reason to reverse the RTC and the CA rulings, which did not order the partition of the co-owned properties as a prerequisite for the nullity of the marriage. The partition of the co-owned properties is not a precondition but is merely incidental to, and is a consequence of, the nullity of the marriage. To reiterate, since the petitioner’s and the respondent’s properties are governed by the rules on co-ownership, the parties are free to choose whether they intend to partition the properties through agreement or by judicial proceeding. The court deems it unnecessary to preempt this choice by mandating the partition of the properties in this case.” (Soto v. Reyes-Soto, G.R. No. 249759, April 22, 2026)

11/05/2026

SUPREME COURT: DARAB JURISDICTION LIMITED TO AGRARIAN DISPUTES, EXCLUDES ORDINARY LOAN TRANSACTIONS

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) exercises primary and exclusive jurisdiction only over "agrarian disputes," which require the existence of a tenurial arrangement such as tenancy or leasehold between the parties and do not extend to ordinary loan transactions.

In an 18-page decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the SC's First Division reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that invalidated the previous decision of the DARAB, as it ruled that DARAB adjudicators had no jurisdiction over the case because the reallocation of land is an administrative matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR secretary.

The case stemmed from the action filed by Carmelita Mercado for the annulment of the transfer certificate of title emancipation patent No. against the heirs of Serafin De Guzman. The dispute involves an 8,212-square-meter portion of a larger agricultural land covered by the said title, which is registered in the name of the heirs of De Guzman.

Mercado claimed that this portion was erroneously included in De Guzman's title. She relied on a December 20, 1994, decision by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), which ordered the segregation of the portion and the generation of an Emancipation Patent in her favor. Mercado argued that this 1994 PARAD decision had already attained finality and was therefore immutable.

The Heirs of De Guzman countered that one of the heirs, Rogelio, merely lent the disputed portion to Mercado to finance the hospitalization of his daughter. They executed a waiver of rights due to an inability to pay the loan, but the heirs maintained that they had fully paid the land amortization to the Land Bank of the Philippines.

The Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) dismissed Mercado's complaint, ruling that the 1994 RARAD decision was void for violating due process and that Mercado was not a rightful reallocatee because the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) never issued an order of reallocation.

On appeal, the DARAB set aside the previous decisions, ruling that the DARAB (and its adjudicators) had no jurisdiction over the case because the reallocation of land is an administrative matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.

The CA reversed the DARAB, ruling that the DARAB had jurisdiction over the cancellation of registered emancipation patents. The CA also ruled that the doctrine of immutability of judgment did not apply to the 1994 PARAD decision because agrarian quasi-judicial agencies are not bound by technical rules of procedure. This paved the way for Mercado to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reversing the appellate court ruling, the high court held that DARAB had no jurisdiction over the case. The DARAB exercises primary and exclusive jurisdiction only over "agrarian disputes," which require the existence of a tenurial arrangement (such as tenancy or leasehold) between the parties.

It explained that in this case, there was no tenurial arrangement between Mercado and the heirs of De Guzman; the transaction was merely a loan to finance a hospitalization.

The highest bench also disagreed with the CA's reasoning as to the application of the 1994 PARAD decision. It clarified that the doctrine of immutability of judgment does apply to quasi-judicial agencies like the DARAB. However, the 1994 PARAD decision cannot be enforced as it falls under a recognized exception, being a void judgment.

"A void judgment produces no legal or binding effect, never attains finality, and can be challenged at any time," the Supreme Court said.

Address

3/F Abad Centre Bloc, South Road , Ward-I
Minglanilla
6046

Opening Hours

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

Telephone

+639171672988

Website

Alerts

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

Contact The Practice

Send a message to P. Abad Law and Co.:

Shortcuts

Share

Category