Reario Law Office

10/09/2025

The (SC) has clarified that disputes involving condominium contracts should be decided by the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), formerly the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), and not the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division nullified the RTC’s ruling that held Vivien M. Cadungog (Cadungog) and Sung Ha Jung (Sung) civilly liable to each other over a contract to sell involving a condominium unit.

Under the contract, Cadungog, a developer of a condominium building in Cebu City, agreed to deliver a unit to Sung once he completed payment of PHP 3.5 million. Sung paid a PHP 175,000 downpayment, and later PHP 3 million, leaving a balance of PHP 258,950. Because of the unpaid amount, Cadungog refused to deliver the unit.

Sung then filed a criminal complaint before the RTC against Cadungog, citing a violation of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957 or the 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦.

The RTC acquitted Cadungog, but ordered her to either: deliver the unit upon full payment of the purchase price, or return the amount Sung had already paid. Cadungog argued that it was the HLURB and not the RTC which had jurisdiction over the civil aspect of her case.

Ruling in Cadungog’s favor, the SC declared as null and void the RTC’s decision on the civil matter of the case.

It explained that while civil liability can be decided in a criminal case, this does not apply when the liability arises from a contract, as in this case.

The SC emphasized that the civil dispute between Cadungog and Sung stemmed from their contract to sell.

Further, under PD 957, as amended, the HLURB (now reconstituted as the HSAC) has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving contractual and legal obligations between buyers and developers of real estate projects. At the time Sung filed the complaint, it was the HLURB that had authority over such cases.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151440.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151432.

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

13/08/2025

15/07/2025

𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐑 𝐎𝐅 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐎 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐄𝐑 𝟏, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 𝐁𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐀𝐘 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐒𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐆𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐆 𝐊𝐀𝐁𝐀𝐓𝐀𝐀𝐍 𝐄𝐋𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

📆 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟏 𝐭𝐨 𝟏𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓
👉Voter Registration

📆 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟏 𝐭𝐨 𝟕, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓
👉Special Register Anywhere Program (SRAP)
👉Online Filing of Applications for Reactivation

📆 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏 𝐭𝐨 𝟕, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓
👉Filing of Certificates of Candidacy

📆 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏 𝐭𝐨 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓
👉Premature Campaigning is PROHIBITED

📆 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟕 𝐭𝐨 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟑𝟏, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓
👉Election Period
👉Gun Ban

📆 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎 𝐭𝐨 𝟐𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓
👉Campaign Period

📆 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟑𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 (𝐄𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐚𝐲)
👉Liquor Ban
👉Campaigning is PROHIBITED

📆 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 (𝐄𝐋𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐃𝐀𝐘)
👉Early Voting Hours (Senior Citizens, Persons with Disabilities, & pregnant women): 5:00 a.m. - 7:00 a.m.
👉Regular Voting Hours: 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

📆 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟑𝟏, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓
👉Last day to File Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE)

NOTE: Voter registration in BARMM is SOLELY for the purpose of the 2025 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections and will not, in any way, affect the final list of voters and databases for the October 13, 2025 BARMM Parliamentary Elections. Those entitled to vote in the May 12, 2025 National and Local Elections shall vote in the 2025 BARMM Parliamentary Elections.

References
https://comelec.gov.ph/?r=2025BSKE/Resolutions/res11132
https://comelec.gov.ph/?r=2025BSKE/Resolutions/res11154
https://comelec.gov.ph/?r=2025BSKE/Resolutions/res11155.

09/07/2025

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/.

21/06/2025

16/06/2025

15/05/2025

FYI Motorcycle Owners‼️

10/05/2025

29/04/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the civil liability of a private school for negligence after it failed to address a bullying incident that led to the assault of a student during a computer class.

In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, the SC Second Division has found Mother Goose Special School System, Inc., in Dagupan City, Pangasinan, negligent for its failure to address a punching incident involving three grade school students inside one of its classrooms while the teacher was in the comfort room.

The victim’s parents informed the school about the said incident, but it just dismissed the complaint, characterizing the assault as “teasing” or “rough play,” and declined to impose disciplinary actions. Aggrieved, this prompted the victim’s parents to file a formal complaint for damages after their requests for an investigation were ignored.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the parents, citing the school’s duty to protect students during school hours. The court said that though the victim reported the incident, no meaningful action was taken.

The said dispositions were subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, saying that educational institutions have a contractual obligation to maintain a safe learning environment. It added that schools must maintain peace and order within their premises and even outside campus during school activities.

The high court also emphasized that the school was guilty of negligence for its lack of proper protocols, failure to inform the victim’s parents promptly, and inaccuracies in its investigation.

“By failing to address the harm committed by one student against another and by negligently handling the punching incident after it had already happened, [the school] failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in providing a safe learning environment to its students,” the SC said.

“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 their occurrence,” the SC added.

The court directed the school to pay the victims a total fine of P600,000, encompassing P300,000 as moral damages, P200,000 as exemplary damages, and P150,000 as attorney’s fees.

05/04/2025

The (SC) has clarified that the time limit or prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes, including those under the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Rules of Expedited Procedures), stops running once a complaint is filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ), not when the case reaches the court.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc abandoned its rulings in the 2023 cases of Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People, which previously held that the prescriptive period for crimes covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules on Summary Procedure) stops only when the information is filed in court.

The Rules on Summary Procedure applied to cases handled by first-level courts and cover crimes including those punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 1,000. This was replaced in 2022 by the Rules on Expedited Procedures, which expanded the coverage of summary procedure to include those crimes punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 50,000.

In 2024, the DOJ issued its Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation, which provide that a summary investigation shall be done if the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of up to one year.

Given these developments, the SC clarified that the prescriptive period for crimes is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecution and the start of the summary investigation. This ruling will apply prospectively.

The SC recognized that while criminal cases should ideally be resolved promptly, delays are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, the State, as the offended party, should not be disadvantaged by delays in the DOJ’s preliminary investigations, even in criminal cases under summary procedure.

The SC also clarified that under Section 281 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses that are not immediately known starts from the time the violation is discovered. The prescriptive period is interrupted once a preliminary investigation begins.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/26tfrr38.

The full text of the SC En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 258563 shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.

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