What are the opening hours?

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

https://www.facebook.com/106555292535009/

Rivera Villasis Nequinto & Mallares Law Office, Quezon City (2026)

28/01/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session today, January 28, 2026, denied the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, which questioned the removal of an annotation on respondent Antonio V. Mitra’s (Mitra) land title.

Mitra owns a parcel of land in Quezon City. After his transfer certificate of title (TCT) was presumed lost or destroyed, he applied for administrative reconstitution.

Following Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, the law that governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles, the reconstituted title contained an annotation stating that it was without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted on the original copy at the time it was lost or destroyed.

Twenty-seven years later, Mitra asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the annotation, pointing out that no one had claimed any interest in the property during that period. The RTC granted the request and ordered the removal of the annotation. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, ruling that the publication and posting requirement no longer applied because of the long lapse of time since the title was reconstituted.

Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, the SC explained that under R.A. No. 26, posting and publication are required only if the petition to cancel the mandatory annotation is filed within two years from the date of administrative reconstitution, and no petition to annotate an omitted interest has been filed during that period.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159902.

The full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 264862, Republic of the Philippines v. Antonio V. Mitra, shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.

26/12/2025

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced ### to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered ### to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved ### wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

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

05/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that when a Filipino asks a Philippine court to recognize a foreign divorce, they only need to prove the law of the country where the divorce was obtained – not the law of their foreign spouse’s nationality.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division sent a case back to the Court of Appeals (CA) to give a Filipina a chance to properly prove the divorce laws of Kentucky, United States of America (U.S.A).

The Filipina married a Peruvian citizen in New Jersey, U.S.A; they later settled in Kentucky. Due to marital issues, the husband ended the marriage by obtaining a divorce decree from a Kentucky court.

The Filipina then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court in the Philippines to have the divorce recognized. She submitted a copy of the divorce decree, along with printouts of Kentucky and Peruvian marriage laws.

The SC clarified that in recognition of foreign divorce cases, what matters is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree. Since the divorce was granted in Kentucky, only Kentucky law needed to be proven.

The SC explained that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, a Filipino may remarry if their foreign spouse gets a valid divorce abroad that allows them to remarry. Philippine courts must first determine if the divorce was valid under the applicable foreign law, and the Filipino spouse must prove this law.

The SC also emphasized the relevance of the international law principle of comity of nations. This principle allows judicial acts of one country – such as court rulings or decrees – to be recognized in another, based on mutual respect between states. It also acknowledges the authority of a foreign state not only over its citizens but also over other individuals under its jurisdiction, like legal residents.

However, the SC returned the case to the CA to give the Filipina, who submitted a mere printout of Kentucky law, a chance to submit the proper documents.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4jhyh8vv.

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

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

30/04/2025

The (SC) has reaffirmed that testimonies from a spouse’s family and friends can help prove psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division declared the marriage of Jeffery A. Green (Jeffery) and Rowena Manlutac Green (Rowena) null and void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity.

Jeffery filed a petition to nullify their marriage, claiming that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated. As evidence, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

According to the said report, Rowena frequently mismanaged their finances, accumulating debts of up to PHP 4 million. She was also accused of cheating on Jeffery and lying about the paternity of their child.

Ruling that Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, the SC emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse. This approach helps avoid potential bias in favor of the spouse who filed the petition.

The SC also reiterated that so long as the totality of the evidence can prove a spouse’s psychological incapacity at the time the marriage was celebrated, the marriage can be nullified under Article 36 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/36crdfhb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3c3t54b7.

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

28/04/2025

The (SC) has held a school civilly liable for negligence after a bullying incident led to the assault of a student during class.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division found that Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. (Mother Goose School) failed to address a punching incident involving three grade school students inside one of its classrooms.

When the victim’s parents raised the matter with the school, their complaints were ignored, prompting them to file formal requests for investigation. Mother Goose School ultimately concluded the incident was mere "teasing" or "rough play" and took no disciplinary action.

Dissatisfied, the parents filed a complaint for damages against the school, the teachers, and the other students’ fathers.

Ordering Mother Goose School to pay the victim’s parents PHP 650,000 in damages and attorney’s fees, the SC agreed with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Mother Goose School was grossly negligent in handling the punching incident.

The SC emphasized that schools have a contractual obligation to ensure a safe learning environment. It also reiterated that schools must maintain peace and order within their premises, and even outside campus during school activities. They may avoid liability only upon proof they exercised due diligence.

The SC found Mother Goose School negligent for its lack of proper protocols, failure to inform the victim’s parents promptly, and inaccuracies in its investigation.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/m86ufzwa.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/mparp5dp.

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

13/04/2025

READ : Ipinababatid ng Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) na maaari nang magpa-Apostille ng mga sumusunod na dokumento mula sa Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) online at hindi na kinakailangang magtungo sa tanggapan ng DFA upang magsumite ng mga kinakailangang dokumento.

✅ Birth Certificate
✅ Marriage Certificate
✅ Advisory on Marriage
✅ Certificate of No Marriage Record (CENOMAR)

Read full advisory 👉🏻 https://tinyurl.com/38yn2f26

21/03/2025

READ : New Philippine Passport Act Allows Reversion to Maiden Name

Read full advisory 👉🏻 https://tinyurl.com/fwjdznd5

17/03/2025

Pinagbabayad ng ng danyos ang isang g**o sa pamilya ng isang taong namatay matapos tamaan ng puno ng saging na ipinag-utos niyang putulin ng kanyang estudyante.

Ayon sa Korte, ang mga g**o ay maaaring mapanagot para sa pinsalang dulot ng isang mag-aaral sa ilalim ng kanilang pangangasiwa kung hindi sila nagsagawa ng angkop na pagsisikap o due diligence para mapigilan ang anumang insidente.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, pinagtibay ng First Division ng Korte ang pananagutan ni Gil Apolinario (Apolinario), ang punong-g**o ng Brgy. Palale Elementary School sa Sta. Margarita, Samar, para sa danyos na bunga ng pagkamatay ni Francisco De Los Santos (De Los Santos).

Inutusan ni Apolinario ang isang 15-anyos na estudyante na putulin ang puno ng saging malapit sa paaralan at katabi ng highway. Tinamaan si De Los Santos na noon ay sakay ng isang motorsiklo.

Pinagbabayad ng Korte si Apolinario ng PHP 355,000.00 bilang danyos at gastusin sa paglilitis sa mga tagapagmana ni De Los Santos.

Ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang mga g**o at pinuno ng paaralan ay may pananagutan sa mga aksyon ng mga mag-aaral habang nasa ilalim ng kanilang pangangasiwa. Kahit sa labas ng oras ng pag-aaral, ang mga tagapagturo ay dapat magsagawa ng angkop na pagsisikap kapag nagtatalaga ng mga gawain sa mga mag-aaral.

Sa ilalim ng Civil Code, ang isang taong nagdudulot ng pinsala sa iba dahil sa pagkakamali o kapabayaan ay dapat magbayad para sa pinsalang nagawa. Sa ilalim ng prinsipyo ng vicarious liability, ang obligasyong ito ay nalalapat din sa mga g**ong nangangasiwa at mga pinuno ng paaralan na pangunahing responsable sa mga aksyon ng kanilang mga mag-aaral habang nasa ilalim ng kanilang pangangasiwa, maliban kung maipakita nila na gumawa sila ng wastong pag-iingat.
Sinabi ng Korte na nabigo si Apolinario na magsagawa ng due diligence. Hindi niya ginawa ang mga kinakailangang pag-iingat upang matiyak ang kaligtasan ng mga mag-aaral at iba pang mga tao sa kalapit na lugar na maaaring maapektuhan.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-teacher-liable-for-damages-for-death-caused-by-student/.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/gil-apolinario-v-heirs-of-francisco-delos-santos-represented-by-edwin-delos-santos/.

06/03/2025

Dapat suriing maigi ng mga bumibili ng lupa ang pagmamay-ari nito sa pamamagitan ng pag-inspect sa certificate of title at sa talaan sa Registry of Deeds upang maiwasan ang mga mapanlinlang na transaksyon.

Ito ang paalala ng sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa kung saan kinatigan ng Third Division ng Korte ang mga desisyon ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Court of Appeals (CA) na nagpawalang-bisa sa mga titulo ng lupa sa Sta. Teresita, Angeles City nina Orencio at Eloisa Manalese (mag-asawang Manalese).

Bumili ang mag-asawang Manalese ng dalawang lote ng lupa kay Carina Pinpin (Pinpin), na nagpakita ng mga duplicate na certificate of title sa kanyang pangalan at sinabing binili nila ang mga ari-arian mula sa mga orihinal na may-ari na sina Narciso at Ofelia Ferreras (Ferreras). Nagpakita si Pinpin ng isang deed of sale bilang patunay ng kanyang pagmamay-ari, na nagpapahintulot sa mag-asawang Manalese na ilipat ang mga titulo sa kanilang pangalan.

Pero hinamon ni Danilo Ferreras, ang tagapangasiwa ng Ferreras Estate, ang bisa ng mga titulong ito sa harap ng RTC at sinabing ang mga ari-arian ay legal pa rin na pagmamay-ari ng Estate. Sinabi niya na si Pinpin ay mapanlinlang na nakakuha ng mga duplicate na titulo sa pamamagitan ng pagsusumite ng isang maling affidavit of loss at isang pekeng deed of sale.

Ayon sa Korte, bigo ang mag-asawang Manalese na suriing mabuti kung sino ang tunay na may-ari ng lupa. Iginiit ng Korte na hindi sapat ang pagsaalang-alang lamang sa titulo, lalo na kung may mga palatandaan ng panloloko o iregularidad. Dahil dito, dapat na suriin ang parehong titulo at ang talaan ng Registry of Deeds bago bumili ng lupa ang sinuman.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, walang good faith kung kahina-hinala na ang bentahan pero ito ay binabalewala lang ng bumibili.

Sa ilalim ng Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 o ang Property Registration Decree, ang isang re-issued title ay duplicate lamang at walang legal weight di tulad ng orihinal na titulo.

Dahil ang mag-asawang Manalese ay may hawak ng mga duplicate na sertipiko, ang dapat nilang ginawa ay i-verify agad ang mga ito sa Registry of Deeds.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254046-spouses-orencio-s-manalese-and-eloisa-b-manalese-and-aries-b-manalese-vs-the-estate-of-the-late-spouses-narciso-and-ofelia-ferreras-represented-by-its-special-administrator-danilo-s-fer/.

28/02/2025

Kailangang bayaran ang overtime ng mga security guard na nagtatrabaho sa ilalim ng broken period scheme kung masyadong maikli ang kanilang break para gamitin sa personal na pangangailangan.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, inatasan ng Third Division ng ang Seabren Security Agency (Seabren) na bayaran ang mga security guard na sina Lorenzo D. Cambila, Jr. at Albajar S. Samad (mga security guard) sa apat na oras na pahinga o agwat na kinakailangan nilang gugulin sa trabaho, lampas sa walong oras na regular duty hours.

Itinalaga ng Seabren sa Ecoland 4000 Residences ang mga security guard sa 12-hour shift na may apat na oras na break sa pagitan. Dahil sa schedule, sila ay may apat na oras na trabaho, apat na oras na pahinga, at apat na oras ulit na trabaho.

Sa ilalim ng Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, ang mga break ay itinuturing na oras ng trabaho kung ito ay masyadong maikli para gamitin sa personal na pangangailangan.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na ang apat na oras na pahinga sa pagitan ng shift ay dapat bilangin na oras ng trabaho dahil hindi rin magagamit ang nasabing oras ng mga guwardiya para sa kanilang sarili. Hindi praktikal at magastos para sa mga security guard na kumikita ng minimum wage na umalis sa trabaho, umuwi, at pagkatapos ay bumalik sa parehong araw.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, ang “broken period scheme” na ipinatupad ng Seabren ay dinisenyo para maiwasan ang mga Labor law at overtime pay.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-security-guards-in-broken-shift-scheme-entitled-to-overtime-pay/.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261716-lorenzo-d-cambila-jr-et-al-vs-seabren-security-agency-et-al/.

Rivera Villasis Nequinto & Mallares Law Office

28/01/2026

26/12/2025

05/06/2025

30/04/2025

28/04/2025

13/04/2025

21/03/2025

17/03/2025

06/03/2025

28/02/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

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