LVCT Law Office

LVCT Law Office Legal services in Puerto Princesa City and Palawan with online legal consultation available

22/12/2025

๐ŸŽ„๐ŸŽ‰ Holiday Greetings from LVCT! ๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ„

As the holiday season approaches, we would like to extend our warmest wishes to Everyone. May your Christmas be filled with joy, peace, and cherished moments with your loved ones.

Please take note of our holiday schedule:

Open until: December 23, 2025

Closed from: December 24, 2025

Reopening on: January 5, 2026

Thank you for continued trust.๐Ÿ™ See you next year!

We extend our warmest congratulations to our partner, Atty. Glaiza Kaye C. Vicente-Moncatar, on her appointment as City ...
17/12/2025

We extend our warmest congratulations to our partner, Atty. Glaiza Kaye C. Vicente-Moncatar, on her appointment as City Information Officer of the City of Puerto Princesa.

We are confident that her experience and commitment to her work will be a valuable asset to the City Information Office and to the community it serves. We fully support her in this new chapter of public service and wish her every success in her new role.

Congratulations, Atty. Glaiza! We are proud of you.โค๏ธ๐Ÿ–คโค๏ธ๐Ÿ–ค

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 SCโ€™s Third Division nullified the RTCโ€™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 ๐˜š๐˜ถ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ ๐˜‰๐˜ถ๐˜บ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ดโ€™ ๐˜—๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ท๐˜ฆ ๐˜‹๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ.

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 Cadungogโ€™s favor, the SC declared as null and void the RTCโ€™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 PIOโ€™s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

Exceptions: (1) when the agency was for the partiesโ€™ common interest, and (2) when the agent, unaware of the death or ag...
29/08/2025

Exceptions: (1) when the agency was for the partiesโ€™ common interest, and (2) when the agent, unaware of the death or agencyโ€™s end, contracted with a third party in good faith.

The (SC) has ruled that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) automatically ceases upon the death of the person who granted it, and any acts carried out by the agent afterwards are void, unless covered by narrow exceptions under the law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SCโ€™s Third Division held that Jessica Alova Uberas lost her authority under the SPA to act on behalf of her father, Meliton Alova, upon his death in 1998.

In 1998, Meliton executed an SPA in favor of Jessica over the subject conjugal property. He died later that year. Despite the death of his father, Jessica still used the same SPA in 2003 to execute a mortgage over the said property in favor of San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) to secure her loan from the company. Jessica failed to pay the loan and the property was foreclosed where SMFI emerged as the winning bidder.

Felicidad Alova and Decelyn Alova Pution, the widow and other daughter of Meliton, filed a case to nullify the mortgage and the foreclosure sale.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) determined that Melitonโ€™s death ended the agency. However, the RTC found that because the SPA had the conformity of Felicidad, Melitonโ€™s wife, the mortgage was valid on her ยฝ share of the conjugal property. On the other hand, the CA declared the mortgage invalid, citing that it was not executed on behalf of Spouses Meliton and Felicidad.

SMFI appealed to the SC, which partly ruled in its favor. The Court upheld the agencyโ€™s termination but validated the mortgage and foreclosure sale with respect to Jessicaโ€™s undivided share in the property.

The SC explained that under an SPA, which is a contract of agency, a principal authorizes an agent to act on his or her behalf in transactions with third persons. Agency is personal, representative, and derivative, and it ends upon the death of either the principal or the agent.

Any act by the agent after the principalโ€™s death is void, unless it falls under two Civil Code exceptions: (1) when the agency was for the partiesโ€™ common interest, and (2) when the agent, unaware of the death or agencyโ€™s end, contracted with a third party in good faith.

In this case, there was no showing that these exceptions were applicable. Jessica was fully aware of her fatherโ€™s death, and the SPA was not made for their mutual benefit.

The SC also reiterated that for an agentโ€™s act to bind the principal, the deed must clearly be made, signed, and sealed in the principalโ€™s name.

Here, although Jessica was described in the beginning of the deed as Melitonโ€™s attorney-in-fact, the mortgage was signed by Jessica in her personal capacity, as it was neither executed nor sealed in Melitonโ€™s name, and without indication that she was acting as attorney-in-fact.

The Court also ruled that Melitonโ€™s wife, Felicidad, was not bound as a principal under the SPA, as she only provided her marital conformity.

However, the Court clarified that the mortgage and foreclosure sale were not entirely void. Jessica automatically became a co-owner of the property after her fatherโ€™s death. When she signed the mortgage, she encumbered her share in the property to secure her obligation to SMFI. Therefore, the mortgage and foreclosure sale were valid only for Jessicaโ€™s share.

The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine Jessicaโ€™s share in the subject property and to annotate the shares of Melitonโ€™s other heirs, and that of SMFI which acquired Jessicaโ€™s interest.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260071-san-miguel-foods-inc-vs-felicidad-d-alova-and-decelyn-alova-pution/

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

LVCT Law Office extends our heartfelt congratulations to our former Liaison Officer, Ms. Reyna Michelle Ruhen, for her r...
13/05/2025

LVCT Law Office extends our heartfelt congratulations to our former Liaison Officer, Ms. Reyna Michelle Ruhen, for her recent election win as No. 1 Sangguniang Bayan Member of the Municipality of Aborlan.

Your dedication, integrity, and leadership were always evident during your time with us, and itโ€™s no surprise to see those qualities recognized by your community.

Weโ€™re proud to have had you as part of our team and even prouder to see you take on this new and important role. Wishing you great success as you serve and lead your constituents with the same passion and commitment you brought to your work here.

Longno Vicente Chavez and Tan Law Offices proudly welcome Atty. Ysabelle Mercado Cardona as its newest associate. With h...
28/02/2025

Longno Vicente Chavez and Tan Law Offices proudly welcome Atty. Ysabelle Mercado Cardona as its newest associate. With her previous exposure to legal work as a paralegal, we are confident that she can handle client concerns with competence and dedication. We look forward to seeing her grow with us as we continue with our commitment to providing quality legal services to our community. Join us in welcoming Atty. Cardona as she embarks on this new chapter with our firm!๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ‰

Congratulations, Atty. Sab!!!๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘

20/02/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a notice to cancel a contract to sell real estate must be notarized under Republic Act No. 6552, popularly known as the Maceda Law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SCโ€™s Second Division upheld the validity of contracts to sell between State Investment Trust, Inc. (SITI) and spouses Carlos and Victoria Baculo (Spouses Baculo) after SITI failed to meet the Maceda Lawโ€™s cancellation requirements.

The Maceda Lawโ€™s purpose is to protect real estate buyers on installment payments against one-sided conditions in contracts.

SITI owned two parcels of land, which it offered to sell to Spouses Baculo through two contracts to sell. When the latter failed to complete payments, SITI sent letters demanding payment and, later, declaring the contracts to sell cancelled. The Spouses Baculo refused to vacate the property, leading Siti to file an ejectment case.

The SC ruled that while a seller may cancel a contract to sell under the Maceda Law on its own without going to court, it must still comply with Section 4 of the law, which requires: (1) a 60-day grace period for the buyer to settle overdue installments; (2) a notarized notice of cancellation from the seller; and (3) cancellation only after 30 days from the buyerโ€™s receipt of the notarized notice.

In this case, the SC found that SITIโ€™s letters were not notarized, and it failed to provide the required 60-day grace period, giving only five days to settle the balance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-notarized-notice-required-to-cancel-real-estate-contract-under-maceda-law/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/237934-state-investment-trust-inc-vs-carlos-baculo/.

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

28/01/2025

The (SC) has ruled that foreign currency deposit accounts are exempt from estate tax under Republic Act No. 6426 (RA 6426), also known as the ๐˜๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฏ ๐˜Š๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜บ ๐˜‹๐˜ฆ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ต ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜—๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฑ๐˜ฑ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SCโ€™s First Division upheld the claim for an estate tax refund filed by the estate of Charles Marvin Romig (Charles), an American national who was a resident of Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro.

Charles passed away in 2011 without leaving a will. His sole heir, Maricel Narciso Romig (Maricel), transferred ownership of his properties to herself, including a dollar deposit account, through an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.

Maricel initially excluded the dollar deposit account from the estate tax computation but later paid an additional PHP 4.56 million to cover it. Subsequently, she sought a refund, arguing that foreign currency deposit accounts are exempt from estate tax under Section 6 of RA 6426.

The Commission on Internal Revenue denied her claim, asserting that the tax exemption over dollar deposit accounts was revoked by the 1997 ๐˜•๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ถ๐˜ฆ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ (NIRC). However, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) ruled in Maricelโ€™s favor.

Affirming the CTA, the SC emphasized that the NIRC, a general tax law, did not expressly repeal the specific tax exemption granted by RA 6426, a special law. The Court clarified that a general law cannot override or revoke a special law without a clear and explicit repeal provision.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-foreign-deposit-accounts-exempt-from-estate-tax/

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/262092-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-vs-estate-of-mr-charles-marvin-romig-represented-by-its-sole-heir-mrs-maricel-narciso-romig/

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

22/01/2025

The has reiterated that a psychological evaluation is not necessary to prove that psychological violence was committed under Republic Act No. 9262, or the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ˆ๐˜จ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ (๐˜๐˜ˆ๐˜ž๐˜Š) ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Courtโ€™s Third Division affirmed the conviction of an accused for psychological violence against his wife and children, sentencing him to up 8 years in prison and PHP 275,000 in fines and damages. The SC also directed him to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC emphasized that a psychological evaluation from an expert witness is not necessary to prove that the victim suffered. It is not a requirement under the law. The SC ruled that a victimโ€™s testimony in court is enough to prove emotional anguish or mental suffering.

Here, the wife testified in detail her experience proving her mental and emotional anguish. Her husband had an extramarital relationship, left her and their children, and cohabited with another woman in a house right beside their own home, in full view of their children. The accused even flaunted his affair on social media.

Read the press release in full at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-psychological-evaluation-not-required-to-prove-psychological-violence-under-anti-vawc-act/

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/270257-###270257-vs-people-of-the-philippines-and-aaa

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

21/01/2025

The has held that banks are not allowed to unreasonably refuse payment by borrowers who risk facing higher interest and additional charges.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SCโ€™s Third Division ordered Premiere Development Bank (Bank) to accept the check tendered by Spouses Engracio T. Castaรฑeda (Engracio) and Lourdes E. Castaรฑeda (Lourdes) as full payment of their personal loan.

The spouses took out a PHP 2.6 million personal loan from the Bank. But they also acted as surety to 3 corporate loans worth PHP 86.8 million obtained by 2 corporations where Engracio served as president and vice president.

When the spouses paid PHP 2.6 million for their personal loan and P6 million for one of the corporate loans, the Bank applied the payment to all 4 loans.

The SC ruled the Bank should have applied the amount as full payment of the spousesโ€™ personal loan. Although Article 1252 of the Civil Code allows the lender to choose how to allocate loan payments if the borrower does not exercise the right to choose, this rule only applied to multiple loans by the same borrower.

It held that the Bank incorrectly treated the spouses and the companies as a single borrower, combining payments for separate personal and corporate loans, as the spouses and the companies are different entities.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-banks-cannot-unreasonably-refuse-payment-from-borrowers/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/185110-premiere-development-bank-vs-spouse-engracio-t-castaneda-and-lourdes-e-castaneda/.

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

02/01/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated that while lenders can acquire properties used as loan collateral, ownership cannot automatically transfer to them.

The SC explained that pactum commissorium occurs when (1) a property is used as collateral for a loan; and (2) the loan agreement includes a provision automatically transferring ownership of the collateral to the lender if the borrower fails to pay.

The SC emphasized that pactum commissorium is prohibited to protect borrowers from losing properties that may be worth more than their debt. Ownership can only be transferred through foreclosure and a public auction.

However, the SC clarified that this prohibition only applies to automatic transfers of ownership. Borrowers are free to voluntarily sell their collateral to lenders as repayment.

In this case, the realty corporation willingly entered into a separate agreement to sell its properties to the lenders as payment for the loan. The SC ruled that this was not an automatic transfer and, therefore, did not violate the prohibition against pactum commissorium.

The Decision is from the SC First Division, penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

Read the full text of the press release at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-automatic-transfer-of-collateral-for-loan-repayment-prohibited/

Read the full text of the Decision at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/217368-ruby-shelter-builders-and-realty-development-corporation-vs-romeo-y-tan-et-al/



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

Address

LVCT Law Office
Puerto Princesa
5300

Opening Hours

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

Telephone

+639771522535

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when LVCT Law Office 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 LVCT Law Office:

Share