De Guzman & Remigio Law and Consulting Firm

03/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that while notarized documents are presumed authentic, they will be invalidated if proven to be fake.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division cleared Gil Chua (Chua) of liability for Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc.’s (Interbrand) unpaid PHP 150 million loan from the Bank of Commerce (Bank).

The loan was secured by promissory notes and notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSAs) signed by several of Interbrand’s officers. Chua was listed as one of the sureties, but unlike the other signatories, he was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the company. When Interbrand failed to pay the loans, the Bank sued the company and all the sureties.

Chua denied any involvement, saying he never signed a CSA nor appeared before a notary public. The Bank, however, insisted that the CSA, as a notarized document, is presumed valid.

Emphasizing that notarization does not cure a forged or fabricated document, the SC ruled that the notarized CAS was questionable and that Chua was not bound by it.

The SC found that Chua successfully challenged the validity of the CSA. He consistently denied signing the document or appearing before a notary. He held no position or interest in Interbrand, and the Bank had no specimen of his signature to verify the CSA.

Additionally, his CSA and another were allegedly signed on the same day in far-apart locations but had identical witnesses, which raised doubts as to their authenticity. The notary public who supposedly notarized the CSA was also never presented in court.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zz7wmbd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/5t4dxh45.

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/.

24/04/2025

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

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

18/04/2025

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/.

18/04/2025

The (SC) has clarified that the time limit or prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes, including those under the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Rules of Expedited Procedures), stops running once a complaint is filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ), not when the case reaches the court.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc abandoned its rulings in the 2023 cases of Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People, which previously held that the prescriptive period for crimes covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules on Summary Procedure) stops only when the information is filed in court.

The Rules on Summary Procedure applied to cases handled by first-level courts and cover crimes including those punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 1,000. This was replaced in 2022 by the Rules on Expedited Procedures, which expanded the coverage of summary procedure to include those crimes punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 50,000.

In 2024, the DOJ issued its Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation, which provide that a summary investigation shall be done if the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of up to one year.

Given these developments, the SC clarified that the prescriptive period for crimes is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecution and the start of the summary investigation. This ruling will apply prospectively.

The SC recognized that while criminal cases should ideally be resolved promptly, delays are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, the State, as the offended party, should not be disadvantaged by delays in the DOJ’s preliminary investigations, even in criminal cases under summary procedure.

The SC also clarified that under Section 281 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses that are not immediately known starts from the time the violation is discovered. The prescriptive period is interrupted once a preliminary investigation begins.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/26tfrr38.

The full text of the SC En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 258563 shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.

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

03/04/2022

10/01/2021

https://www.facebook.com/103185527756773/posts/450946486314007/

Sponsorship of undeclared family members

08/01/2021

Is Canada an option for you? We are an affiliate firm of Oanes Law of Canada which specializes in Canadian property and Immigration laws. Contact us if you would like us to book you an appointment.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=449375729804416&id=103185527756773

Thank you, Therese for the kind words! 🇨🇦💕💕

20/12/2020

Business Closure - Employees' Separation Pay?

What is separation pay? This is the amount given to an employee whose employment is severed for a number of reasons, and is usually computed based on the number of years said employee had worked in the company.

In case of closure of business, the entitlement of an employee to a separation pay depends on whether:

a. The employment contract expressly grants such benefit; or,
b. The closure of business is NOT due to severe business losses.

This means that (a) if there is no provision in the employment contract regarding payment of separation pay, and (b) if the closure of the employer's business is due to severe business losses, as may be proven by substantial evidence such as an audited financial statement, then the employer is NOT obligated to pay separation pay. If the employer gives some sort of financial assistance to its employees under this scenario, it is to be treated as mere gratuity which is generally not legally demandable.

Separation pay, when applicable in case of business closure as discussed above, shall be equivalent to 1 month's pay or 1/2 month's pay multiplied by the years of service of the employee, or as stipulated in the contract, whichever is higher.

Please note that the above discussion does not cover temporary suspension of business operations which is governed by a different set of rules.

10/12/2020

INHERITANCE

What do we do with the estate left behind by our parent/s who left no last will and testament?

While under the law, you are already considered the owner or co-owner of the properties left behind by your parents when they die, the reality is you still have to process the actual transfer of title over the properties under your name and/or your co-heirs.

Ideally, the matter should be resolved out of court among the heirs. This can be done by entering into an agreement for the partition of the estate and the assignment of the divided portions to each of the heirs. In case of real properties, the heirs can agree which of the properties should be assigned to whom, or they can hire a geodetic engineer to subdivide the estate for them.

In dividing the estate, the parties must exert effort to make the division in accordance with what the law provides, considering that those who agree to get a lesser share than what he or she may be entitled to receive under the law may be unnecessarily assessed donor's tax.

After reaching an agreement, a document commonly known as "Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate" is executed, and the fact of its ex*****on must likewise be published in a newspaper of general circulation. This document and the proof of publication are usually required by the BIR, Assessor's Office and the Registry of Deeds which are the government agencies you would need to transact with before actually securing certificates of title over your inheritance under your name.

The Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate document must likewise cover the other types of properties of the deceased, like bank deposits, shares of stock, automobiles, etc... Your failure to include ALL the properties of the deceased in the settlement might result to a hefty penalty.

It is best to hire a lawyer to help you prepare this document.😊

06/12/2020

Our Firm is an affiliate of Oanes Law of Ontario, Canada which specializes in Canadian Immigration and Real Estate laws. We can set up an appointment for you should you wish to learn more.

https://www.facebook.com/103185527756773/posts/426568215418501/

Thank you, client!

🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦