Atty. Miguel M. Castillo

10/02/2026

27/08/2025

Nagpasya ang na awtomatikong natatapos ang bisa ng isang Special Power of Attorney sa pagkamatay ng taong nagbigay nito. Anumang hakbang na gagawin ng kinatawan matapos ang pagkamatay ng principal ay walang bisa, maliban kung sakop ng mga exception sa ilalim ng batas.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, sinabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na nawalan ng awtoridad si Jessica Alova Uberas (Jessica) na kumilos sa ngalan ng kanyang amang si Meliton Alova (Meliton), dahil natapos na ang bisa ng SPA sa pagkamatay ni Meliton noong 1998.

Taong 1998 nang nagpagawa si Meliton ng isang SPA pabor sa anak na si Jessica kaugnay ng ari-arian nilang mag-asawa. Namatay siya sa huling bahagi ng parehong taon. Sa kabila nito, ginamit ni Jessica ang SPA noong 2003 para makakuha ng loan mula sa San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) sa pamamagitan ng pagsangla sa ari-arian ng kanyang yumaong ama. Nabigong bayaran ni Jessia ang loan at na-foreclose ang ari-arian kung saan ang SMFI ang nanalong bidder.

Nagsampa ng kaso upang mapawalang-bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale sina Felicidad Alova at Decelyn Alova Pution, ang balo at iba pang anak ni Meliton.

Parehong nagpasya ang Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Court of Appeals (CA) na natapos ang bisa ng SPA sa pagkamatay ni Meliton. Gayunman, sinabi ng RTC na dahil may pagsang-ayon sa SPA ang asawa ni Meliton na si Felicidad, may bisa ang sangla sa kanyang kalahating bahagi ng conjugal property. Sa kabilang banda, idineklara ng CA na walang bisa ang mortgage dahil hindi ito isinagawa sa ngalan ng mag-asawang Meliton at Felicidad.

Umapela ang SMFI sa Korte Suprema na bahagyang nagpasya pabor dito nang itinaguyod ang pagwawakas ng ahensiya pero binigyang-bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale kaugnay sa bahagi ni Jessica sa ari-arian.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, sa ilalim ng SPA na isang kontrata ng ahensiya, pinahihintulutan ng principal ang isang ahente na kumilos sa ngalan niya sa mga transaksiyon kaugnay ng ibang partido. Ang ahensiya ay personal, kinatawan, at hinango, at nagtatapos ito sa pagkamatay ng alinman sa prinsipal o ahente.

Walang bisa ang anumang aksiyon ng ahente pagkatapos mamatay ang prinsipal maliban kung napapailalim ito sa dalawang exception sa Civil Code: (1) kapag ang ahensiya ay para sa karaniwang interes ng mga partido, at (2) kapag ang ahente, na hindi batid ang pagkamatay o pagtatapos ng ahensiya, ay nakipagkontrata sa isang ikatlong partido nang may good faith.

Sa kasong ito, walang pagpapakita na naaangkop ang mga exception na ito. Ganap na alam ni Jessica ang pagkamatay ng kanyang ama at hindi ginawa ang SPA para sa benepisyo nilang dalawa.

Iginiit ng Korte Suprema na para maitali ang principal sa aksiyon ng isang ahente, dapat malinaw ang kasulatan na ginawa, pinirmahan, at sinelyuhan sa pangalan ng principal. Dito, nilagdaan ang mortgage ni Jessica sa kanyang personal na kapasidad bagama't inilarawan siya nito bilang attorney-in-fact ni Meliton.

Hindi rin nakasaad bilang principal sa ilalim ng SPA ang asawa ni Meliton na si Felicidad.

Gayunman, nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na hindi ganap na walang bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale. Awtomatikong naging co-owner ng property si Jessica pagkatapos ng pagkamatay ng kanyang ama. Noong pinirmahan niya ang mortgage, inilagay niya ang kanyang bahagi sa ari-arian upang matiyak ang kanyang obligasyon sa SMFI. Samakatuwid, may bisa lamang ang mortgage at foreclosure sale para sa bahagi ni Jessica sa ari-arian.

Ibinalik ng Korte Suprema ang kaso sa RTC para matukoy ang bahagi ni Jessica sa nasabing pag-aari at i-annotate ang mga bahagi ng iba pang tagapagmana ni Meliton, at ng SMFI na nakakuha ng interes ni Jessica.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://t.co/hNAbdz5jd0.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

03/07/2025

The (SC) has ruled that an acknowledgment receipt cannot be considered a contract of sale unless it clearly shows that the seller intends to transfer ownership of the property to the buyer.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the agreement between Virgilio B. Chavez and his fellow petitioners (Chavez family) on one hand, and Spouses Joselito and Adriana Gopez (spouses) on the other was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale.

The case involved two properties inherited by the Chavez family, which they agreed to sell to the Spouses Gopez for PHP 31.5 million. The spouses were required to pay PHP 5 million as downpayment and to prepare the necessary documents, including the contract to sell.

The spouses initially paid PHP 200,000, noted in an acknowledgment receipt as “earnest money.” This receipt was the only proof of their agreement.

Later, the Chavez family canceled the agreement, claiming that the spouses had not paid the full down payment and had delayed the paperwork. This led the Spouses Gopez to file a case to force the Chavez family to proceed with the sale.

Ruling that the transaction was a contract to sell, the SC explained that in such a contract, the seller does not agree to transfer ownership of the property just yet. The seller only commits to fulfilling their promise to sell the properties and transfer title to the buyer after an event, typically the full payment of the purchase price. If this does not happen, their obligation to sell does not arise, and the seller retains ownership of the property.

In contrast, a contract of sale clearly shows the seller's intent to transfer ownership to the buyer.

In this case, the acknowledgment receipt did not include any promise to transfer ownership. It only showed that the spouses needed to meet conditions: the payment of the purchase price and preparation of the contract to sell, deed of sale, and estate settlement.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3zfynpbc.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4hvfm3ze.

Read the the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/msysydyb.

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

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/.

23/06/2025

On June 19, 2025, the introduced the portal, which allows lawyers to file cases before the SC, except Administrative and Bar matters, upload pleadings, and track the progress of their cases anytime and anywhere.

The Court also announced that beginning July 1, 2025 until September 30, 2025, it will begin transitioning to electronic filing or eFiling for certain petitions and motions through the eCourt PH app, which is available on the Philippine Judiciary Platform, a unified online portal for court services accessible at https://portal.judiciary.gov.ph.

During this period, filing through the online portal will be in addition to paper-based filing under the Rules of Court.

By October 1, 2025, eFiling and service through the PJP will be mandatory for covered pleadings filed by lawyers.

This is pursuant to A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC, or the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court, in preparation for mandatory eFiling starting October 1, 2025.

Read the Resolution here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/25-05-16-SC.pdf

For more details, visit https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ecourt-ph/

23/06/2025

Personally filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.

15/08/2024

President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. moved the commemoration of Ninoy Aquino Day from August 21, 2024 to August 23, 2024 (Friday), and declared it as a special non-working day nationwide, the PCO announced.

24/07/2024

WALANG PASOK 📣

𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲

In view of the continuous rainfall brought about by the Southwest Monsoon and Typhoon “Carina,” and to aid in the rescue, recovery, relief and rehabilitation efforts of the government and the private sector, work in government offices and classes at all levels in Regions III, IV-A and the National Capital Region are hereby suspended on 25 July 2024.

However, those agencies whose functions involve the delivery of basic and health services, preparedness/response to disasters and calamities, and/or the performance of other vital services shall continue with their operations and render the necessary services.

The suspension of work for private companies and offices is left to the discretion of their respective heads.

10/02/2024

𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐍𝐎. 𝟒𝟔𝟏, 𝐬. 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒

𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐃𝐀𝐘, 𝟏𝟑 𝐅𝐄𝐁𝐑𝐔𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒, 𝐀 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋 (𝐍𝐎𝐍-𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆) 𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐀𝐐𝐔𝐄

Visit the Official Gazette website: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/lQSYYT

05/12/2023

Congratulations to all new lawyers!!!

28/10/2023

SC: Law Cannot Alter Blood Relationships

While the law may declare who are legitimate children, it cannot alter blood relationships.

Thus held the Supreme Court, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by James Cua Ko. The petition challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) denial of Ko’s Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child.

The case involved a petition by James Cua Ko to recognize a minor child, Jamie Shaye, whose birth certificate indicated him as the father. Jamie Shaye was born during a marriage between Shalimar Abellera and Kerwin Cruz Par. The court upheld the presumption of legitimacy, as provided by Article 164 of the Family Code, which considers children born during a valid marriage as legitimate for their best interest. Additionally, Article 170 of the Family Code stipulates that only certain individuals, primarily the husband, can challenge a child's legitimacy directly.

While James Cua Ko's petition was denied due to his lack of standing under the law, the Supreme Court clarified that Jamie Shaye still has the right to establish her filiation to him if she chooses to do so. The court acknowledged the complexity between legitimacy, which is a civil status established by marriage, and filiation, which is the biological relationship. It stressed that children born during a valid marriage but not necessarily to their biological parents may have doubts about their filiation and identity. Consequently, the law allows such children to establish their filiation, and this choice should ultimately belong to the child.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-law-cannot-alter-blood-relationships/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/210984-jame-cua-ko-vs-republic-of-the-philippines/.