Atty. Ver Anthony Fortich, CPA-Lawyer, Attorney at Law

01/05/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1B6aJvFyyJ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

OSG: Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce Not Covered by Article 26(2), Family Code |

The Supreme Court is currently conducting oral arguments on a petition involving the judicial* recognition of a foreign divorce.

The case involves a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce obtained by a Filipino. Notably, both parties were Filipinos at the time of the marriage. Thus, the governing rule is Article 17, paragraph 3 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 15 of the same Code.

However, during the pendency of the case, the petitioner became a United States citizen and subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship.

Observe in the comment section the arguments of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as to why the present petition does not fall within the ambit of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code; hence, the petition should be dismissed



FOOTNOTES

Article 1, Family Code
Article 26, paragraph 2, Family Code
Article 15, Civil Code
Article 17, paragraph 3, Civil Code

📸 Photo courtesy of Supreme Court Ph/fbpages

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/.

12/03/2025

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/.

07/01/2025

The Supreme Court has upheld Sections 6 and 29 of Republic Act No. 9136, or the 𝘌𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘗𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘈𝘤𝘵 (𝘌𝘗𝘐𝘙𝘈), stating that electricity generation and supply are not public utility operations but are still subject to the regulation of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).

In the same Resolution, the Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 also upheld Sections 34 and 43(b)(ii) of the law empowering the ERC to fix and approve the universal charge imposed on electricity end-users, and Section 43(f), which gives the ERC the power to fix charges to allow distribution utilities to recover their losses.

Fernando Hicap (Hicap) and others filed a petition before the Court challenging the constitutionality of the EPIRA provisions. This came after the ERC authorized Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) to recover its generation costs from consumers on a staggered basis. Hicap, et al. argued that the generation and supply sectors of the electric power industry are not public utilities and thus, not subject to ERC’s regulation.

The Court ruled that to be considered a public utility, a business must provide a service essential to the general public.

Power generation and supply companies are not public utilities because they offer their services to limited customers and do not deal directly with the general public.

However, they remain under government regulation because the EPIRA expressly provides safeguards against abuse or irregular activity, such as the requirement on these companies to secure from the ERC a certificate of compliance, among other regulations.

Read the full text of the press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-electricity-generation-and-supply-not-public-utility-operations-but-still-subject-to-erc-regulation/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/210334-rep-fernando-l-hicap-et-al-vs-the-energy-regulatory-commission-et-al/



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

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Aqq4Zh8cp/?mibextid=WC7FNe

The Supreme Court has ruled that demotion, verbal abuse, and indifferent behavior by an employer that forces an employee to resign constitute constructive illegal dismissal.

Constructive dismissal happens when an employer creates such unbearable working conditions that the employee feels forced to resign.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, stressed that actions demonstrating extreme dislike and hostile behavior, such as demotion, uttering insulting words, and apathetic behavior toward an employee, constitute constructive illegal dismissal when such actions cause the employment conditions to be so unbearable that there is no other choice but to resign.

The Court held that the standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt forced to give up their employment under the circumstances.

While the Court said that strong words may be exchanged in the workplace where there are bound to be disagreements, these should not degrade the dignity of employees to avoid a hostile work environment.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-employers-insulting-words-hostile-behavior-toward-an-employee-constitute-constructive-dismissal/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254465-jonathan-dy-chua-bartolome-vs-toyota-quezon-avenue-inc-lincoln-t-lim-esteban-dela-paz-jr-josefina-de-jesus-and-pauline-bacaling/

21/10/2024

21/10/2024

The Supreme Court welcomes the enactment of new laws creating 21 additional Regional Trial Courts, 2 Municipal Trial Courts, and 3 Metropolitan Trial Courts in different cities and municipalities in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.

03/07/2024

08/05/2024

The Supreme Court has declared that red-tagging, vilification, labelling, and guilt by association threaten a person’s right to life, liberty, or security, which may justify the issuance of a writ of amparo.

READ: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-red-tagging-threatens-right-to-life-liberty-and-security/