BVS Law Firm

08/08/2026

⚖️ WHEN DOES A JUDGMENT BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY?

A “final judgment” is not necessarily immediately enforceable.

A judgment is considered final when it completely disposes of the case and leaves nothing more for the court to decide regarding the parties’ rights and obligations. However, the losing party may still file a motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, or appeal within the period provided by law.

A judgment becomes final and executory when:

✅ The period to appeal or seek reconsideration has expired; and
✅ No timely appeal, motion for reconsideration, or motion for new trial was filed.

As a general rule in ordinary civil cases, a party has fifteen (15) days from receipt of the judgment or final order within which to appeal. A timely motion for reconsideration or new trial interrupts this period. Once such motion is denied, the party ordinarily has a fresh period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the denial within which to appeal, when the applicable rules so provide.

Example:

A party receives the court’s decision on August 1. The decision is already a final judgment because it completely resolves the case. However, it is not yet final and executory because the party may still appeal. If no proper motion or appeal is filed within the prescribed period, the judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law.

Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it generally becomes immutable and unalterable. Neither the court that rendered it nor even a higher court may ordinarily modify it. What remains is its enforcement or ex*****on.

In simple terms:

“Final judgment” means the court has finished deciding the case.

“Final and executory judgment” means the period to challenge the decision has ended, and it may now be enforced as a matter of right.

Finality relates to the completion of judicial determination; executory character relates to enforceability.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that a judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law upon the lapse of the reglementary period without a proper appeal being perfected. Rules of Court⁠ | Supreme Court ruling⁠

This discussion states the general rule. Different proceedings may have special periods or may be immediately executory by law or by the applicable rules.

08/08/2026

⚖️ Excessive Interest Rates and Harassing Debt Collection Are Prohibited

Many borrowers believe that once they obtain a loan, the lender may freely impose any interest rate or use any means necessary to collect payment. That is not the law.

To protect borrowers from abusive lending practices while promoting responsible lending, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued SEC Memorandum Circular No. 3, which prescribes the maximum allowable effective interest rates, fees, and other charges that financing and lending companies may impose through their online lending platforms. The issuance seeks to prevent excessive and unconscionable charges that place borrowers in an endless cycle of debt.

Likewise, SEC Memorandum Circular No. 18, Series of 2019 establishes the rules on fair debt collection practices. While lending companies have the legal right to collect legitimate obligations, they are prohibited from employing abusive, oppressive, or deceptive collection methods. These include harassment, threats, intimidation, the use of obscene or insulting language, public shaming, disclosing a borrower’s debt to unauthorized persons, and other acts that violate the borrower’s dignity, privacy, or rights.

The law strikes a balance between the interests of lenders and borrowers. Borrowers are expected to honor their financial obligations, but lenders must likewise conduct their business within the limits prescribed by law. The right to collect a debt is never a license to impose illegal charges or engage in unlawful collection practices.

These SEC issuances serve as an important reminder that consumer protection extends beyond the granting of loans. It also ensures that the cost of borrowing remains reasonable and that debt collection is carried out fairly, ethically, and in accordance with the law.

01/08/2026

SERIOUS, LESS SERIOUS, OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES?

Not every physical injury is treated the same under Philippine law.

The Revised Penal Code classifies physical injuries into three main categories depending on the gravity of the injury and the period required for medical treatment or incapacity to work. This classification determines the criminal liability and the corresponding penalty.

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

A person commits Serious Physical Injuries when the injuries inflicted produce grave and lasting consequences, such as:

• The victim becomes insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
• The victim loses the use of speech, hearing, smell, an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg;
• The victim loses the use of any of the foregoing organs or limbs;
• The victim becomes permanently incapacitated for work;
• The victim suffers a permanent deformity; or
• The victim becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than thirty (30) days.

Example:

During a fight, A strikes B with a metal pipe, causing B to lose the vision in one eye. Even if B survives, the permanent loss of sight makes A liable for Serious Physical Injuries.

LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

This offense is committed when the injuries cause the victim to be incapacitated for work or require medical attendance for more than ten (10) days but not more than thirty (30) days.

Example:

A punches B several times, fracturing B’s wrist. B requires treatment and cannot work for twenty (20) days before fully recovering. The injury falls under Less Serious Physical Injuries.

SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES

This applies when:

• The victim is incapacitated for work or requires medical treatment for one (1) to nine (9) days;
• The injuries do not prevent the victim from working nor require medical attendance; or
• The act consists merely of ill-treatment without causing any actual injury.

Example:

A slaps B during an argument, leaving redness and minor swelling that disappears after a few days without significant treatment. Depending on the medical findings and the period of incapacity, A may be liable for Slight Physical Injuries.

WHY MEDICAL CERTIFICATES MATTER

In prosecutions for physical injuries, the Medico-Legal Certificate or Medical Certificate is often one of the most important pieces of evidence. It helps establish:

• The nature and extent of the injuries;
• The period of medical treatment;
• The duration of incapacity for work; and
• Whether the injuries fall under serious, less serious, or slight physical injuries.

The court does not determine the classification based solely on photographs or the appearance of the wounds. Competent medical evidence plays a crucial role.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

If you have been physically assaulted, seek immediate medical attention, preserve all medical records, take photographs of your injuries, identify possible witnesses, and promptly report the incident to the proper authorities. Early documentation not only protects your health but also strengthens any criminal case that may be filed.

The law does not measure violence by the number of blows inflicted. It measures it by the injury caused and its effect on the victim’s body and ability to work.

20/07/2026

⚖️ “Atty., pwede ba mi maghimo og kasabutan nga officially bulag na mi sa akong asawa?”

The answer is NO.

No lawyer can legally prepare or notarize a document that “ends” a valid marriage outside of what the law allows.

In Espinosa and Glindo v. Atty. Julieta Omaña, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011, the spouses consulted a lawyer on how they could legally separate. Instead of explaining the law, the lawyer prepared and notarized a “Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay” that purported to dissolve their marriage, divide their properties, settle child custody, and govern support obligations. Believing the document to be valid, the spouses implemented its terms. Later, they discovered that the agreement had no legal effect whatsoever. (Supreme Court E-Library)

The Supreme Court did not mince words.

It ruled that an extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. More importantly, the Court emphasized that a lawyer and a notary public must never facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging spouses to execute documents that the law does not recognize. (Supreme Court E-Library)

As a consequence, the lawyer was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. (Supreme Court E-Library)

📌 Lesson: A notarized document is not automatically a valid document. Notarization does not breathe life into an agreement that is prohibited by law. Even if both parties willingly sign it, a document that attempts to dissolve a marriage or the conjugal partnership without legal authority remains void.

Before signing or notarizing any document affecting your marriage, family, or property rights, seek competent legal advice. A wrong document today can create years of legal problems tomorrow.

Case: Espinosa and Glindo v. Atty. Julieta A. Omaña, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011.

20/07/2026

“Sir, pwede na ba ko mubaligya sa lain? Earnest money ra man iyang gihatag.”

Not so fast.

Many people think earnest money is just a “pang-reserve.”

It is not.

Under the law, earnest money is generally considered part of the purchase price and serves as proof that the parties have agreed on the sale.

That means accepting earnest money may create legal obligations—not just for the buyer, but also for the seller.

So before you hand over or accept even a small amount, make sure you know:

• What if the buyer suddenly backs out?
• What if the seller decides to sell to someone else?
• Will the earnest money be forfeited, refunded, or applied to the purchase price?
• Is everything clearly stated in writing?

A few thousand pesos given today can become the subject of a lawsuit tomorrow if the terms are not clear.

The lesson? Never treat earnest money as a simple “reservation fee.” Know exactly what you are agreeing to before any money changes hands.

A clear written agreement today can prevent a costly legal dispute tomorrow.

20/07/2026

📌 BEFORE YOU BUY LAND: HOW TO KNOW IF THE SELLER IS THE REGISTERED OWNER

One of the biggest mistakes buyers make is relying only on what the seller says. Always verify ownership before paying even a single peso.

Here are some simple tips:

✅ Ask for a copy of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) or Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).
The seller should be able to present the property’s title.

✅ Check the name on the title.
The registered owner appearing on the title should be the same person selling the property. If someone else is selling it, ask for a valid Special Power of Attorney (SPA) or proof of authority.

✅ Request a Certified True Copy from the Registry of Deeds.
Do not rely solely on the photocopy given by the seller. A Certified True Copy allows you to verify that the title is genuine and still active.

✅ Verify the owner’s identity.
Ask for a government issued ID and make sure the name matches the title.

✅ Check if there are annotations on the title.
Look for mortgages, liens, adverse claims, notices of lis pendens, or other encumbrances that may affect your ownership.

✅ If the registered owner is already deceased, be extra careful.
The heirs cannot simply sell the property without first complying with the legal requirements for the settlement of the estate, unless authorized by law.

Buying property is a major investment. Spending time to verify ownership can save you from years of costly litigation.

When in doubt, consult a lawyer before signing any document or making any payment.

⚖️ A little due diligence today can prevent a lifetime of legal problems tomorrow.

06/07/2026

MYTH: “We’ve been living together for 5 years, so we don’t need a marriage license.”

Not quite.

I still hear this misconception all the time: “Five years na man mi nag-live in, so okay na. Dili na kinahanglan ug marriage license.”

The law is not that simple.

Under Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines, a marriage license may be dispensed with only if all of the following requirements are present:

• The parties are a man and a woman;
• They have lived together as husband and wife continuously for at least five (5) years immediately preceding the marriage;
• They were legally free to marry each other throughout that entire five-year period (meaning there was no legal impediment to their marriage);
• They execute a sworn Affidavit of Cohabitation; and
• The solemnizing officer executes a sworn statement that he or she personally verified the parties’ qualifications and found no legal impediment to the marriage.

Here is the important part:

If you dispense with the marriage license without actually satisfying Article 34, the marriage may be VOID from the very beginning.

The Supreme Court has consistently enforced these requirements.

In Bounsit-Torralba v. Torralba, G.R. No. 250049, July 6, 2022, the parties invoked Article 34 to avoid obtaining a marriage license. However, the evidence showed that they had only been romantically involved for about a month before the wedding. Since the required five-year cohabitation was clearly absent, the marriage was declared void.

Likewise, the requirement that there be no legal impediment throughout the entire five-year period is not a mere technicality. If either party was still married to someone else during the claimed period of cohabitation, the affidavit may contain false statements and may even expose the parties to legal consequences. This was emphasized in Office of the Court Administrator v. De Vera, A.M. No. RTJ-20-2575, February 16, 2021.

The Supreme Court has also reminded judges and other solemnizing officers that they cannot simply rely on the parties’ representations. They have a duty to personally verify compliance with Article 34. They should likewise avoid notarizing the parties’ Affidavit of Cohabitation if they will also be the ones solemnizing the marriage. See Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1845, June 18, 2014, and Office of the Court Administrator v. Justalero, A.M. No. RTJ-21-019, June 27, 2023.

The bottom line: The “five-year cohabitation” exception is exactly that—an exception, not the general rule. Before deciding to skip the marriage license, make sure that every legal requirement under Article 34 has been fully satisfied. Otherwise, what you believe to be a valid marriage today may later be declared void.

Many legal problems begin with the words, “Akala ko okay lang.” Don’t let your marriage be one of them.

Share this to help correct one of the most common misconceptions about marriage under Philippine law.

06/07/2026

06/07/2026

⚖️ DOES THE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED SPOUSE HAVE TO BE PERSONALLY EXAMINED BY A PSYCHOLOGIST?

The Supreme Court says: No.

This is one of the most common misconceptions in petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

In De Silva v. De Silva, the wife filed a petition to declare her marriage void on the ground of her husband’s psychological incapacity. She presented evidence showing that throughout their marriage, her husband was a habitual gambler and drinker, repeatedly engaged in infidelity, subjected her to physical and verbal abuse, failed to provide financial support, accumulated substantial debts, and repeatedly threatened her with violence. She also presented a psychological report concluding that her husband’s condition was rooted in his personality structure and existed even before the marriage.

The husband challenged the psychological report, arguing that it was unreliable because the psychologist never personally examined or interviewed him, and instead relied primarily on the accounts of his wife and her mother.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

The Court ruled that a personal examination of the allegedly psychologically incapacitated spouse is not an indispensable requirement. A psychological evaluation may still be considered credible even if it is based on collateral sources, provided that it is supported by credible testimony, documentary evidence, and the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.

The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not merely a medical or psychiatric diagnosis. Thus, the absence of a personal examination does not automatically defeat a petition for declaration of nullity. What is essential is that the evidence, taken as a whole, clearly and convincingly establishes that the spouse’s incapacity is grave, legally incurable, and rooted in his or her personality prior to the marriage, rendering the spouse genuinely incapable of complying with the essential obligations of marriage.

📖 Case: De Silva v. De Silva, G.R. No. 247985, October 13, 2021.

21/06/2026

HOW TO PROVE THE OWNERSHIP OF FACEBOOK IN A DUMMY ACCOUNT.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada

Facebook remains a widely used social media site in the Philippines. It is a voluntary social network to which members register, share information such as thoughts and photographs, and interact with other members.

Thus, the Supreme Court takes discretionary judicial notice that in the Philippines, a Facebook account can be easily created by any person claiming to be a minor least who has an email address or mobile phone number.

Once a Facebook account is created, the user can add other users as friends and exchange private messages with them. The user can also post statements, photos, or videos, "which can be made visible to one, depending on the user's privacy' settings.

The user's friends can like and. comment on posts visible to them. The user may access their Facebook account by entering the following log-in credentials: (a) usermame, email address, or mobile phone number; and (b) password. Considering the susceptibility of Facebook accounts to hacking, they may be protected through built-in security features such as two-factor authentication and log-in alerts.

Furthermore, posts of arid private messages in Facebook can be deleted. For private messages, users have the option to delete their private message not only for them but also for their recipients.

Facebook accounts can be easily deactivated or deleted by the user. Once a Facebook account is permanently deleted, all its posts will also be deleted but its private messages will be stored in the recipients in boxes.

The ease by which a Facebook account can be created allows the proliferation of fake or dummy accounts, i.e., accounts created in one person's name by someone else or by a person using a pseudonym. Fake accounts can be used for surveillance and entrapment operations, he spreading of disinformation, identity theft, among others. They can also be utilized to falsely incriminate people. or, as illustrated below, to facilitate the commission of crimes.

How can the prosecution established beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is the author of the subject Facebook post. This issue is hinged on whether petitioner is the owner of or has access

To the subject Facebook account, as the fact of posting using a Facebook account presupposes ownership of or access to the same.

It is settled that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove; not only the elements of the criminal charge but also the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. Even if the commission of the crime is established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt.

To satisfy this quantum of evidence, the identity of the perpetrator of the crime may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. Social media are internet-based platforms that "enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content.” Social networking sites is one classification of social media platforms. Facebook falls under said
category.

In Catan v. People,

Robert Catan (Catan) was charged with simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 or the CybercrimePreventionAct of 2012. Using a Facebook account with the name "Rolly Gatmaitan," Catan threatened the private offended party that he will post the latter's n**e pictures and videos in social media unless he will be paid a certain amount of money. He instructed the private offended party to bring the money alone at a certain location and time, place the money inside a red plastic bag, and leave it on a seat.

During an entrapment operation, Catan was caught taking the money inside the red plastic bag. The apprehending officers recovered from Catan' s possession one silver Huawei Y7 cellphone, which contained the n**e pictures and videos of the private offended party.

This Court affirmed the factual finding of the lower court that Catan was the "Rolly Gatmaitan" who demanded money through Facebook. We ruled that Catan's unexplained possession of the Huawei cellphone "gives credence to the fact that he was the 'Rolly Gatmaitan' who extorted money.

To establish, Catan's ownership of the subject Facebook account, this Court relied .on the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3 (j) of the Rules of Court that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is , the taker and the doer of the whole act.

In People v. Bandojo, Jr.,

Ludivico Patrimonio Bandojo, Jr. (Ludivico) was charged with qualified human trafficking. An agent of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a surveillance and entrapment -operation. Ludivico used a Facebook account with the name "Jhanne David" to offer sexual services of women. The NBI agent communicated with Luvidivico through said Facebook account.

Later, Ludivico met the NBI agent in person for the payment. The NBI agent handed Ludivico the downpayment as they agreed upon through Facebook. These circumstances, as held by this Court, established that Ludivico indeed owned the said Facebook account and used the same to communicate with clients.

In Asa v.People,

Journey Kenneth Asa (Asa) was charged with robbery with intimidation of persons under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. Using a Facebook account with the name "Indho Than," Asa sent a message to the friend of the private offended party, threatening to post the latter's "private and post-coital photos. Using her friend's Facebook. account, the private offended party pleaded with Asa not to release the photos. Asa demanded money in exchange for the memory card containing the private photos.

Later on, Asa met the private offended party on the date agreed upon, introduced himself as the person talking through the -subject Facebook account, and received the money. Asa denied the charge but did not raise the issue of whether his ownership of subject Facebook account was proven beyond reasonable doubt. This Court upheld his conviction. Indeed, based on the foregoing, there is no hard-and-fast rule establishing the fact of ownership of or access to a Facebook account.

In view of foregoing disquisition, it is opportune for the Court to
provide guideposts in establishing the fact of ownership of or access to a social media account, in the context of crimes and offenses committed through social
media.

For purposes of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the perpetrator of the crime or offense committed through social media, the fact of social media account ownership or access, and the fact of owenrship of a social media post or private message, may be established by: direct or circumstantial evidence, including but not limited to the following:

l. The perpetrator admits ownership of or access to the social media
account, or admits authorship of the social media post or private
message.

2. The perpetrator is seen accessing or using the social media account, or is seen composing, posting or sending the social
media post or private message.

3. The social media post or private message contains information
known only to the perpetrator or a few people, or that only the perpetrator could be expected to say or know.

4. The perpetrator. posts or communicates using the social media account consistent with a unique manner, language pattern, or other distinctive characteristics indicating their of the authorship said post or communication.

5. The records of the 'Internet service provider or telecommunications company, the records of a social media site,
geolocation features, the results from an examination of the search history or hard drive of the perpetrator's device, or a social media forensics authorship attribution report show that:

a) The social media account is owned or accessed by the perpetrator;

b) the social media account is connected to the perpetrator's email address, mobile number, or other social media accounts; or

(c) the social media post or private message originated! from the perpetrator's computer, laptop, mobile phone or similar device, under circumstances in which it is reasonable to believe that only the perpetrator would have had access to such device. In no case, however; should the foregoing records, geolocation features, search history or hard drive examination results, or investigation reports be indispensable in establishing the fact of social media account ownership or access; or the fact of authorship of a social media post or private message.

The perpetrator acts in such a manner consistent with the post or private message previously or contemporaneously posted or sent through the social media account. Other pieces of evidence showing that the perpetrator· is the owner of or has access to the social media account, or that the perpetrator is the author of the social media post or private
message.

SOURCE: ###, Petitioner vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 274842, October 22, 2025, First Division. (J. Hernando)