Aguilar-Mestiola Law Office & Notary Public

31/01/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17U4SjLT3G/

25/01/2026

https://c.org/rSf25RpSDy

Can you spare a minute to help this campaign?

02/01/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1A5gbUaeGM/

ADOPTION, ANNULMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUSIVITY: THESE MMFF FILMS REMIND US WHY THE LAW MATTERS

A few days before the release of the Bar Exam results, the Metro Manila Film Festival 2025 quietly gave us three films that reminded us why the law and the legal profession matter, even beyond courtrooms and classrooms.

Kip Oebanda’s Bar Boys returned to the story of lawyers and the paths they choose. More than the grind of law school or practice, it centered on human rights and the responsibility that comes with the title. It reminded us that the law is not just about success or survival, but about who you stand up for, especially when no one else will.

Jun Robles Lana’s Call Me Mother tackled adoption with honesty and care. It showed how the law intersects with love, identity, and belonging. Adoption was not treated as mere paperwork or procedure, but as a deeply human process where legal rules exist to protect, but never replace, compassion and sacrifice.

Jeffrey Jeturian’s Unmarry explored annulment and the painful reality of relationships that no longer work. It showed how the law steps in when love fails, not to judge, but to provide structure, protection, and dignity for people trying to move forward.

Sigrid Bernardo’s I’mperfect tells a simple but powerful story of two people with Down syndrome falling in love. Although the law is not the central concept, it touches on anti-discrimination, inclusivity, and PWD rights, and reminds us that the law should protect the right to love and live with dignity, regardless of ability.

Taken together, these films reminded us that the law affects our lives in ways we often do not notice. It shapes families, defines rights, and gives people a chance to heal, rebuild, or fight for others. It affects the relationships we choose and those we let go.

At a time when many are waiting anxiously for their Bar results, these stories were a timely reminder. The law is not just an exam to pass. It is a tool that touches real lives every day.

Thanks to these films, we are reminded that the legal profession is not just about lawyers in courtrooms. It is about people, stories, struggles, and second chances.

Huge thank you to the cast and production! Vice Ganda Nadine Lustre Carlo Aquino Rocco Nacino Enzo Pineda Kean Cipriano Will Ashley Sassa Gurl Zanjoe Marudo Nathan Studios Inc.

31/08/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CS1aKAF6x/

Did You Know? Posting a Debtor’s Personal Information on Social Media to Compel Payment is a Crime

Read more in the comment section.

23/08/2025

https://fb.watch/BENYWbULTp/

Featuring on a special role as Court clerk, Atty. Rona A. Mestiola, yours truly🥰🙏⚖️

22/08/2025

It's our 2nd YEAR ANNIVERSARY! 🥳🥳🥳

Thank you for the trust our dear clients and partners 🙏❤️⚖️

Cheers to more years of legal service and commitment 🥂🥰

06/08/2025

Celebrating my 2nd year on Facebook. Thank you for your continuing support. I could never have made it without you. 🙏🤗🎉

06/08/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/19dETJevv8/

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

05/07/2025

We are also open on weekends :)

Saturdays - 8am to 8pm
Sundays - 8am to 5pm

Book now for your legal services or visit us at
142 Mindanao Ave., Bahay Toro, Proj. 8, Quezon City.

Send a message to learn more

09/06/2025

Thank you for the review Mam Heidi 🙏⚖️❤️