VMP Law

15/01/2026

One act of generosity.
One family’s turning point.
And a legacy that continues to pay forward in ways no billable hour ever could.

In 1998, Malaysian lawyer Ahmad Zaharil defended a distressed woman who had been caught stealing a pencil box worth about RM18 (around $5). She explained she had promised the gift to her young son if he topped his class but couldn’t afford it. Moved by her story, Zaharil verified it with her son’s teacher and took her case pro bono, resulting in a one-year good-behavior bond instead of jail time. Before leaving, the courtroom community also gave her some money to ease her financial burden.

Twenty five years later, Zaharil was surprised when a young man approached him in court, introducing himself as the son of the woman he had helped. He had become a lawyer and came specifically to thank Zaharil for his kindness, which had left a lasting impact on his life. Zaharil called the reunion one of the most heartwarming moments of his career, noting that his act of compassion transcended race, religion, and social status, and he has since maintained contact with the family.

06/01/2026

Even mortgages tied to closed banks aren’t forever. With the right legal steps, titles can be cleared and rights protected.

CASE WIN ⚖️✨

🔓Cancellation of Mortgage successfully released by PDIC

📍Client was a debtor of the closed Rural Bank of Naval

28/11/2025

VMP Law Office is pleased to share that the Certificate of Finality and Writ of Ex*****on have been issued in a case we successfully won.

Grateful for our client’s trust. On to the next. ⚖️

Sharing the dispositive portion of the Honorable Court’s Decision:

01/10/2025

VMP Law Office proudly secured another win in a Petition for Appeal on nullity of marriage. The Court of Appeals granted our client’s appeal, another step forward in delivering justice and fresh beginnings.

19/08/2025

🎓 LEGAL FACT OF THE DAY

🏠 Thinking of Selling Your Share in a Co-Owned Property? Not So Fast! ⚠️

📜 Under the Civil Code, a co-owner must give written notice to the other co-owners before selling their share to a third party. The others then have 30 days from receiving the notice to redeem or buy back that share.

💡 However, in Azurin v. Chua, the Supreme Court ruled that if the other co-owners already knew about the sale and failed to act within 30 days, then written notice is no longer required, and the sale can push through.

Send a message to learn more

28/07/2025

🎓 LEGAL FACT OF THE DAY

💔 Trapped in a marriage with someone who can’t love you back?

It may not just be painful — it might be legally void.

📌 According to the Supreme Court, a spouse’s emotional detachment or inability to form real intimacy, if rooted in a genuine psychological incapacity, can be a valid ground to declare a marriage void under the law.

🧠 It’s more than just incompatibility. It’s a legal issue and you have options.

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

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

25/07/2025

🎓 LEGAL FACT OF THE DAY

📢 VERBAL LAND SALE — IS IT VALID? 🧐

🔍 Did you know? Under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforceable in court. A written contract serves as solid proof that both parties agreed to the transaction.

💡 However, in Ocampo v. Batara-Sapad, the Supreme Court ruled that a land sale can still be valid and binding even without a written contract, if the agreement has already been fully or partially performed.

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

24/07/2025

🎓 LEGAL FACT OF THE DAY

❓ Unsure if your document protects your rights? Don't lose your rights over unclear documents.

🔍 The Supreme Court ruled that an acknowledgment receipt is NOT a valid contract of sale unless it clearly shows the seller’s intent to transfer ownership.

👉 Whether you’re buying, selling, or dealing with a property dispute, make sure your transactions are legally sound.

The (SC) has ruled that an acknowledgment receipt cannot be considered a contract of sale unless it clearly shows that the seller intends to transfer ownership of the property to the buyer.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the agreement between Virgilio B. Chavez and his fellow petitioners (Chavez family) on one hand, and Spouses Joselito and Adriana Gopez (spouses) on the other was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale.

The case involved two properties inherited by the Chavez family, which they agreed to sell to the Spouses Gopez for PHP 31.5 million. The spouses were required to pay PHP 5 million as downpayment and to prepare the necessary documents, including the contract to sell.

The spouses initially paid PHP 200,000, noted in an acknowledgment receipt as “earnest money.” This receipt was the only proof of their agreement.

Later, the Chavez family canceled the agreement, claiming that the spouses had not paid the full down payment and had delayed the paperwork. This led the Spouses Gopez to file a case to force the Chavez family to proceed with the sale.

Ruling that the transaction was a contract to sell, the SC explained that in such a contract, the seller does not agree to transfer ownership of the property just yet. The seller only commits to fulfilling their promise to sell the properties and transfer title to the buyer after an event, typically the full payment of the purchase price. If this does not happen, their obligation to sell does not arise, and the seller retains ownership of the property.

In contrast, a contract of sale clearly shows the seller's intent to transfer ownership to the buyer.

In this case, the acknowledgment receipt did not include any promise to transfer ownership. It only showed that the spouses needed to meet conditions: the payment of the purchase price and preparation of the contract to sell, deed of sale, and estate settlement.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3zfynpbc.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4hvfm3ze.

Read the the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/msysydyb.

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

23/07/2025

🎓 LEGAL FACT OF THE DAY

💔 Feeling trapped in a marriage built on lies? You may have legal options.

🔍 The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled that concealing one’s homosexuality from a spouse can be considered FRAUD — a valid ground for annulment under the law.

The (SC) has reiterated that hiding one’s homosexuality from a spouse can be considered fraud and may be used as a ground to annul a marriage.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division annulled the marriage of a woman whose husband concealed his homosexuality before they got married.

The couple met on social media. On their first date, the woman noticed that the man seemed distant. The man also avoided sitting beside her. When asked about this, the man said he was just shy and lacked confidence.

The two kept a long-distance relationship as the man worked overseas. Notwithstanding this, they got married two years later.

But the man continued to avoid intimacy and often started arguments to avoid his wife. Just two months after the wedding, he returned overseas and stopped communicating with her.

Later, the woman found magazines with half-naked and naked male models among her husband’s things. When she confronted him, he admitted that he was homosexual. The woman then filed for annulment of their marriage.

The SC ruled that the woman’s consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud, and that the marriage must be annulled on the ground of fraudulent concealment of sexuality, following Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(4) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Article 45 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 states that a marriage can be annulled if one party’s consent was obtained through fraud, as long as the couple did not continue living together after discovering the fraud. Article 46 further specifies that hiding one’s homosexuality or lesbianism from a spouse is considered fraud.

The SC gave credence to the woman’s allegations, noting that the man’s admission and his unexplained silence when his sexuality was being questioned could not be ignored. It found that the husband intentionally hid his homosexuality to persuade the woman to stay and marry him.

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

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yjn9a89f.

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