Castor Landicho-Castor Law Office

21/10/2025

Sarado po ang opisina ng Oct. 22-25.

Resume: Oct. 26 3pm-8:00pm

01/10/2025

📌 NOTARY PUBLIC REMINDER📌

Madalas po kaming makatanggap ng mga ganitong katanungan:

▪️“Atty., pwede po ba magpanotaryo kahit wala yung isang party?”
▪️“Atty., pwede po ba ipanotaryo kahit nasa abroad yung pipirma?”
▪️“Atty., pwede bang iwan na lang ang dokumento para may tatak na pagbalik?”
▪️Magcchat po ng “Atty., pwede bang ipagawa na ngayon para pagbalik pipirma na lang?”
▪️“Atty, wala naman pong maghahabol. Baka puwede na hindi na umappear yung iba?”
▪️:“Eh Atty, patay na po yung isa. Pero buhay pa nung na-execute yung dokumento. Pwede bang ipanotaryo?”

👉🏼 Ang sagot po: HINDI pwede.

🔹 Ayon sa 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Rule IV, Sec. 2[b]), kinakailangan ang personal appearance ng mga taong pipirma sa dokumento.

Bakit po?
✅ Dahil iniinterview ng Notary Public ang kliyente upang malaman ang tunay na nilalaman at layunin ng dokumento.

Hindi po namin kayang mag-telepathy para malaman kung gusto niyo talaga ang laman ng dokumento. 😁

✅ Kinukumpirma na ang pirma ay kanila talaga.

Hindi po kami psychic para hulaan kung sa inyo nga yung pirma.😄

✅ Tinitiyak na ang pagpirma ay ginawa nang kusang-loob at may buong pag-unawa.

kailangan po naming siguraduhin na kusang-loob niyo itong pinirmahan at hindi po dahil na-challenge lang kayo sa “Sige, pirma ka kung matapang ka!” 🤭

Kung patay na po yung pumirma, RIP po… pero kahit po multo, hindi puwedeng mag-personal appearance. Sa notaryo, bawal ang ghost signing! ✌🏼

TANDAAN: Ang personal appearance ay hindi po simpleng requirement lamang. Ito ay proteksyon para sa inyo upang maging balido, legal, at ligtas ang inyong dokumento.

06/08/2025

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

21/07/2025

Office closed
July 22-27

Resume: July 28

30/04/2025

Office closed
May 1-4

06/02/2025

Law office closed today til Monday, Feb 10, 2025
Resume: Feb 11, 2025

08/01/2025

Office Hours today: 5:30pm-7:30pm
Office closed Jan. 9-12

Resume on Monday, Jan. 13.

02/01/2025

The Supreme Court reiterated that while lenders can acquire properties used as loan collateral, ownership cannot automatically transfer to them.

The SC explained that pactum commissorium occurs when (1) a property is used as collateral for a loan; and (2) the loan agreement includes a provision automatically transferring ownership of the collateral to the lender if the borrower fails to pay.

The SC emphasized that pactum commissorium is prohibited to protect borrowers from losing properties that may be worth more than their debt. Ownership can only be transferred through foreclosure and a public auction.

However, the SC clarified that this prohibition only applies to automatic transfers of ownership. Borrowers are free to voluntarily sell their collateral to lenders as repayment.

In this case, the realty corporation willingly entered into a separate agreement to sell its properties to the lenders as payment for the loan. The SC ruled that this was not an automatic transfer and, therefore, did not violate the prohibition against pactum commissorium.

The Decision is from the SC First Division, penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

Read the full text of the press release at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-automatic-transfer-of-collateral-for-loan-repayment-prohibited/

Read the full text of the Decision at:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/217368-ruby-shelter-builders-and-realty-development-corporation-vs-romeo-y-tan-et-al/



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

31/10/2024

Open po ang office today.
3pm-8pm

29/10/2024

Sa ating mga kababayan po na taga Tanauan City, Sto. Tomas City, Municipalities of Laurel and Talisay na nasalanta at nais magpagawa ng affidavit of damage or loss dulot ng pinsala ng Typhoon Kristine or magpanotaryo ng anumang dokumento na kakailanganin para sa calamity loan or leave, mangyaring magmessage po muna dito sa fb page at pumunta po dito sa law office sa Brgy. Balele, Tanauan City, Batangas. Ito po ay LIBRE.

Office Hours: 5:30pm-8pm.