Lee & Elegio-Lee Law and Notarial Office

09/07/2025

27/06/2025

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/.

19/06/2025

DOCUMENTARY STAMP REQUIRED IN NOTARIZATION OF TAXABLE DOCUMENTS

Pursuant to Section 201 Paragraph 2 of National Internal Revenue Code (as Amended) – "No notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths shall add his jurat or acknowledgment to any document subject to documentary stamp tax unless the proper documentary stamps are affixed thereto and cancelled.", and

Section 188 of National Internal Revenue Code (as Amended) – "…and on each certificate issued by a notary public, …which is issued for the purpose of giving information, or establishing proof of a fact, and not otherwise specified herein, there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax of Thirty pesos (₱30.00)."

Loose Documentary Stamps are now available at Lee & Elegio-Lee Law and Notarial Office for only ₱30.00 each.

Please be guided that certain documents require loose documentary stamps upon notarization, as shown below. For your convenience, you may now purchase them directly from our office.

Feel free to message us or visit for more details.
📍 222–224 Grepac Building, Salazar Street, Brgy. 19, Tacloban City

10/06/2025

In line with its Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027, the (SC) has amended the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules) to modernize and streamline notarial reporting.

In an En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, the SC approved amendments to the 2004 Notarial Rules, specifically on the submission of copies of notarial entries and instruments acknowledged by notaries public.

Under the Amended 2004 Notarial Rules, notaries public are now required to keep in portable document format (PDF) the certified copy of each month’s notarial entries and the duplicate original copy of instruments acknowledged before them.

These should be emailed to the clerk of court within the first 10 days of the following month using the notary public’s official email address. If there are no entries for the month, a formal statement confirming this must be submitted instead.

All PDF files must be sent as direct attachments to the transmittal email. They must not be submitted as external links to cloud storage, file-sharing platforms, or similar sites. PDF files should not be compressed into archive formats such as ZIP (.zip) or RAR (.rar), and must not require additional extraction or conversion prior to access.

Notaries are prohibited from charging any fees for digitizing, transmitting, or processing these documents.

Courts retaining electronic duplicate original copies of notarized documents are directed to conduct an inventory and assessment of these materials. A report on the results must be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator, with a copy furnished to the SC’s Management Information Systems Office.

The Amended 2004 Notarial Rules was published on June 6, 2025, in two newspapers of general circulation and shall become effective 15 days from publication or on June 21, 2025.

Read the full text of the SC’s March 4, 2025 Resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, Re: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, at https://tinyurl.com/bdzaatrx.

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

21/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that the children remain legitimate even if their parents’ marriage is later declared null and void due to psychological incapacity.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division modified the ruling of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that declared a child illegitimate following the nullity of her parents’ marriage.

The child was born several months before the couple got married. During the marriage, the wife experienced physical, emotional, and verbal abuse from her husband, who himself struggled with alcohol addiction, gambling, and infidelity.

This prompted the wife to file a petition to nullify their marriage, which the RTC granted, declaring the marriage void due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

However, the RTC also declared their child illegitimate since she was born before their marriage, and her birth certificate did not show she had been legitimated.

The SC affirmed that the marriage was void, but ruled that the child remains legitimate.

The general rule is that when a marriage is nullified, the child is considered illegitimate from the time they were conceived.

However, the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 allows exceptions, such as when the marriage is nullified due to psychological incapacity. This applies whether the child was born before or during the marriage.

The SC emphasized that once a child is legitimated under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, there is no legal basis for changing their status back to illegitimate. Allowing this would go against the law’s intent to protect the child’s best interests.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4yrkc82r.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/c673ywxs.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://tinyurl.com/mrx3swc7.

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

10/05/2025

Iginiit ng na ang mga korte ay hindi obligadong sundin ang mga kasunduan sa parental custody kapag hindi ito ang nasa “best interest” ng bata.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, pinagbigyan ng Second Division ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon nina Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto at ng kanyang mga magulang (mga petitioner) at ibinalik ang kaso muli sa Family Court para sa tamang paglilitis.

Ang kustodiya ay ibinigay ng Korte sa mga petitioner, na may aktwal na pangangalaga sa bata, habang ang kaso ay nananatiling nakabinbin sa Family Court.

Taong 2013 nang magkaroon ng anak sina Jeffrey at Sheena Olpoc Cabrillos. Matapos manirahan sa bahay ng pamilya ni Jeffrey sa Davao City, naghiwalay ang mag-asawa. Inilipat ni Sheena ang bata sa bahay ng kanyang mga magulang sa Cotabato City, habang nasa bahay naman ni Jeffrey ang bata tuwing bakasyon.

Noong 2020, napatagal ang pagbisita ng bata kay Jeffrey dahil sa COVID-19 lockdown. Pero kahit na tinanggal ang mga restriction, tumanggi si Jeffrey na ibalik ang bata kay Sheena. Sa kabila ng pagsisikap ng mga pulis at isang social worker, pinili ng bata na manatili kay Jeffrey.

Kalaunan ay pumirma ang mga magulang sa isang kasunduan sa barangay na nagsasabing ibabalik ni Jeffrey ang bata pagkatapos ng school year noong Abril 2021. Pero hindi pa rin sumunod si Jeffrey kaya si Sheena ay nagsampa ng reklamo sa pulisya at petition para sa writ of habeas corpus sa Family Court.

Naglabas ang Family Court ng writ na nag-utos sa mga petitioner na humarap at dalhin ang bata sa korte. Sa pagbabalik ng writ, ang hukom ay nagsagawa ng closed-door conference kasama ang mga magulang lamang, na sumang-ayon na si Sheena ay magkakaroon ng kustodiya sa bata sa Hulyo 2021. Sa isang order, pinagtibay ng Family Court ang kanilang kasunduan at winakasan ang kaso.

Pero tumutol ang mga petitioner at iginiit sa hukuman na dapat ito na nagsagawa ng isang buong paglilitis upang matukoy ang “best interest” ng bata. Umapela sila sa Court of Appeals, na sumang-ayon na muling buksan ang kaso pero pinanindigan pa rin ang kasunduan ng mga magulang bilang isang provisional custody arrangement.

Nagpasiya pabor sa mga petitioner ang Korte Suprema na ang petisyon para sa habeas corpus sa mga kaso ng kustodiya ay naglalayong tukuyin kung sino ang may nararapat na kustodiya at hindi lamang para masiguro ang pagharap ng bata sa korte.

Dapat na maingat na isaalang-alang ng mga hukuman sa paglilitis ang kabuuan ng mga pangyayari at ibigay lang ang kustodiya kung:
• ang petitioner ay may legal na karapatan sa kustodiya;
• ang bata ay inilalayo sa kanila ng kabilang partido; at
• ang makasama ang petitioner ay para sa best interest ng bata.

Sinabi ng Korte na nabigo ang Family Court na suriin ang mga salik na ito at umasa lang sa kasunduan ng mga magulang nang hindi nagsasagawa ng case study o inalam ang kakayahan ng mga magulang.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://tinyurl.com/3p6v2cc2.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/52yna5zv.

08/03/2025

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/.