Atty. Jennafer Tiu Law Office

28/03/2026

24/02/2026

11/02/2026

𝗔𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗩𝗔𝗪𝗖 𝗟𝗮𝘄

Mothers who abuse their children can be offenders under the Anti- Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, and fathers can apply for remedies under the law on behalf of the abused children.

Citing Section 3 of the VAWC Act, the Court noted that “violence against women and children” was defined in the law as abusive acts “committed by any person.”

“The statute used the gender-neutral word ‘person’ as the offender which embraces any person of either sex,” noted the Court.

A mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children.

The Court refuses to be an instrument of injustice and public mischief perpetrated against vulnerable sectors of the society such as children victims of violence. The Court will not shirk its bounden duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statute, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail.

𝗥𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘆 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗲𝗹 𝗞𝗻𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗼𝗻, 𝗩𝘀. 𝗛𝗼𝗻. 𝗘𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗮 𝗥. 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼-𝗙𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀, 𝗚.𝗥. 𝗡𝗼. 𝟮𝟯𝟵𝟮𝟭𝟱. 𝗝𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝟭𝟮, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮

10/02/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division granted a woman’s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

05/02/2026

NPC Warns Creditors Unauthorized Disclosure of Debtors’ Sensitive Information is Punishable by Law

The National Privacy Commission (NPC) reminds all creditors—banks, lending companies, and other financial institutions—to strictly refrain from disclosing the sensitive personal information of their debtors to any third party without proper consent. Such unauthorized disclosures are clear violations of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and may result in severe legal consequences, including imprisonment and substantial fines.

Under the Data Privacy Act, any personal information controller or processor, including creditors and their employees or agents, who discloses sensitive personal information of a debtor without the data subject’s consent may be penalized with imprisonment ranging from three (3) years to five (5) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more than Two million pesos (Php2,000,000.00) RA 10173 (2012). The law also imposes similar penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information, and even higher penalties for a combination or series of such acts.

The NPC urges all creditors to review their data handling practices, ensure strict compliance with the law, and respect the privacy rights of their clients. The Commission will not hesitate to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal action against violators.

Read the FULL TEXT of the press release in the comment section.

09/01/2026

30/12/2025

JUSTICE SAMUEL GAERLAN PENNED CASE!!⚖️👨‍⚖️

ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Clara Magno
G.R. No. 203876. March 29, 2022

ISSUE: Whether or not the necessity and desirability of the nature of the work performed confer regular employment status upon an employee?

RULING: The Supreme Court (SC) held that an essential characteristic of regular employment as defined in Article 280 of the Labor Code is the performance by the employee of tasks considered necessary and desirable to the overall business or trade of the employer. The necessity of the functions performed by the workers and their connection with the main business of an employer shall be ascertained "by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety."

In this case, the SC ruled that the worker who served as a Video Tape Recorder (VTR) Playback Operator was a regular employee of ABS-CBN. It noted that the functions she performed were important and desirable to ABS-CBN’s operations, most especially taking into account that the employee continuously rendered such services for more than eighteen (18) years.

As a broadcasting company engaged in the business of airing television and radio programs, ABS-CBN depends on technical personnel such as a VTR Playback Operator to generate advertising revenue, thereby making her functions highly essential to its profit-generating activities. Hence, the employee legally attained regular employment status.

30/12/2025

24/12/2025

SUPREME COURT: BUYERS ENTITLED ONLY TO REFUND OF PURCHASE PAYMENTS WHEN DEVELOPERS FAIL TO COMPLETE AMENITIES

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that when a developer fails to complete a property project, the law does not entitle the buyer to a refund of the cost of improvements made to the unit but only to a reimbursement of amortization payments or amounts originally paid for the purchase of the property.

In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division ordered Phinma Property Holdings Corporation to refund the amortization payments made by Joshua Rivera for the purchase of a condominium unit after the structure was declared unsafe.

In 2016, Rivera and Phinma entered into a contract to sell involving Unit Mat on the 5th floor of Building 5, Hacienda Balai Condominium, with an area of 30 square meters in exchange for Php1,110,000.

Rivera agreed to pay Phinma equity in the amount of Php209,000, while the balance of Php836,000 will be settled through HDMF with projected monthly installments of Php5,850.

He moved into his unit after settling a move-in fee of PHP 29,500, and also made several improvements on the subject property, which cost PHP 25,000. Weeks later, Rivera noticed long visible cracks on the main walls supporting the unit, as well as in the living room, toilet, and wash area.

Likewise, water seeped through the unit, thereby damaging the vinyl floors and backdoor. Dirty black molds had also formed along the walls, causing a constant stench in the place. In addition, the unit was infested with insects.

He also discovered that the amenities Phinma marketed, such as the swimming pool, playground, and parking area, were not available. This paved the way for him to file a report with the Department of the Building Official of Quezon City, which led to an inspection of the eight buildings.

After inspection, the Quezon City government engineers issued an order requiring Phinma to rectify, repair, or demolish the building immediately. They also advised all tenants and occupants to vacate the premises, as it is not structurally sound.

Aggrieved, Rivera lodged a complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Expanded National Capital Region Field Office against Phinma, seeking the refund of his monthly amortizations and other expenses he spent for the renovation of the unit.

The Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) ruled in favor of Rivera and directed Phinma to refund all his expenses, including the money for the purchase of the said unit. The said decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeals, prompting Phinma to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In partially granting the appeal of Phinma, the high court emphasized that under section 24 of the Presidential Decree No. 957, or the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protection Decree, while Rivera is entitled to a refund, it does not authorize the return of all the amounts paid or spent by the buyer, but only the amortization payments or those remitted to purchase the property.

It emphasized that there is no legal basis to order Phinma to refund the move-in fees and cost of improvement for the unit, as they do not fall within the purview of allowable refunds under Section 23.

But in requiring Phinma to refund the amortization payment, the highest bench cited section 20 of the Presidential Decree No. 957, which gives developers a period of one year from the date of the issuance of the license for the subdivision or condominium project to complete the facilities and infrastructures that they advertise or offer to prospective buyers.

"Records reveal that Phinma failed to complete the Hacienda Balai condominium project within the required period of time," the Supreme Court said.

It directed Phinma to return to Rivera the Php209,000 he paid for the unit, including the Php93,600 monthly amortization and Php80,000 as attorney's fees.

22/12/2025

PERSONALITY DISORDER LEADING TO VIOLENT TENDENCIES GROUNDS FOR NULLIFYING MARRIAGE—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that having violent tendencies that lead to inflicting physical and emotional abuse on one's spouse may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

In a 14-page decision authored by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between Marie Anne Grace Chua-Mascariñas and Martin Mascariñas, Jr., on the ground of latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Marie and Martin were former schoolmates. During college, despite already being in a relationship, Martin courted Marie. They became intimate with each other.

Later, they decided to live under the same roof, where Marie began to notice Martin's violent tendencies. There even came a time when Martin threw food on her face. Worse, he regularly had carnal knowledge of Marie while intoxicated, leading to her unexpected pregnancy, and they were eventually compelled to get married.

After they got married, Martin's physical and emotional abuse worsened. At one point, in a fit of rage, Martin shoved Marie to the floor, causing her to miscarry. In 2010, Marie noticed that Martin had become distant and no longer wanted to sleep in the same bed. Martin later confessed that he was having an affair with two other women.

Marie then decided to leave their house and eventually filed a petition for nullification of marriage on the ground of their respective psychological incapacities. Despite receipt of summons, Martin did not file an answer.

During the trial, a clinical psychologist testified and presented a psychological evaluation report, which revealed that Marie was suffering from a dependent personality disorder with passive-aggressive traits.

On the other hand, Martin was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder coexisting with antisocial and dependent personality disorders. The expert said that these diagnoses rendered both of them psychologically incapacitated to assume and properly discharge their roles and obligations in the marriage.

The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and declared that their marriage is null and void. But the Court of Appeals reversed the said ruling, prompting Marie to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In granting the petition, the high court found that Marie had sufficiently overcome the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the nullity of her marriage with Martin on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity.

It noted that the incapacity of Martin has sufficiently been characterized as (1) incurable, as there is a persistent failure on the part of Martin to love, respect, and render support to Marie; (2) grave, as it is not merely a mood swing or occasional emotional outburst; and (3) judicially antecedent, as it was already existent even prior to their marriage.

"It is pertinent that the Psychological Report was never controverted by contrary evidence. There is likewise no finding of collusion between the parties by the public prosecutor. As such, there is nothing on record that would negate its legitimacy," the Supreme Court said.

It emphasized that since Martin's psychological incapacity to fulfill marital obligations was successfully established, there is no necessity to delve into Marie's psychological incapacity, as the nullification of a marriage may be based on the psychological incapacity of either spouse.