Miralles Miralles & Associates Law Office

13/08/2025

06/08/2025

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/.

27/06/2025

The has reiterated that a victim’s admission of being in a relationship with her abuser does not imply consent to s*x. Clear and convincing evidence of consent is still required.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of accused Jhopet Hernandez Toralde for r**e of a 14-year old girl.

In 2017, Toralde showed up at the victim’s house unannounced and forced her to have s*x, threatening to show her family a video of them kissing if she refused. Out of fear, the victim gave in. She then reported the incident to the police.

During trial, the defense claimed that Toralde did not force the victim to have s*xual in*******se as he and the victim were in a romantic relationship—a defense known as the “𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆.”

The SC, however, rejected Toralde’s sweetheart defense and declared him guilty of r**e under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, citing that all elements of the crime were present, including the use of threats and intimidation to force s*xual in*******se.

The SC rejected Toralde’s sweetheart defense, affirming that being in a relationship does not grant the right to force s*x. The SC stressed that proving a romantic relationship is not enough—there must be clear evidence of consent.

Toralde was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢, or a maximum of 40 years in prison, and ordered to pay the victim PHP 225,000 in damages.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/nvpvv9fm.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/6tzma4tx

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

02/05/2025

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/.

02/05/2025

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/.

25/04/2025

Annulment and nullity of marriage cases must now be filed and served electronically through email, except for initiatory pleadings.

In A.M. No. 25-01-13-SC, the En Banc expanded Rule 13-A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates electronic filing and service of pleadings, motions, and other papers in civil cases in first- and second-level courts.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended this inclusion, noting that these cases follow similar procedures to civil actions.

The amendment takes effect after publication of the Resolution on April 24, 2025.

Read the press release in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-requires-electronic-filing-for-annulment-and-nullity-of-marriage-cases/

Read the full text of A.M. No. 25-01-13-SC, Re: Inclusion of the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage and Annulment of Marriage in the Coverage of Rule 13-A of the Rules of Court, at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25-01-13-sc-re-inclusion-of-the-declaration-of-absolute-nullity-of-marriage-and-annulment-of-marriage-in-the-coverage-of-rule-13-a-of-the-rules-of-court/ .

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

10/03/2025

The has taken an important step towards modernizing legal processes by approving the Rules on Electronic Notarization (E-Notarization Rules) – a significant reform that leverages technology to make notarial services more accessible and efficient nationwide.

Under A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the E-Notarization Rules and the Guidelines on the Accreditation of Electronic Notarization Facility Providers (Accreditation Guidelines). These rules introduce Electronic Notaries Public (ENPs), who are authorized to perform notarial acts for individuals located anywhere in the Philippines and, in certain cases, even abroad.

This expanded jurisdiction addresses a key limitation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules), where traditional notaries public were restricted to performing notarizations only within their territorial jurisdiction. By allowing ENPs to provide services across the country, the new rules ensure greater accessibility, particularly for those in remote or underserved areas.

The updated framework enables 3 forms of electronic notarization:
- In-Person Electronic Notarization (both principals and witnesses must be physically present)
- Remote Electronic Notarization (principals and witnesses may connect virtually to ENP via videoconferencing)
- Mixed In-Person and Remote

To enhance security, the E-Notarization Rules implements Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) such as facial recognition, biometrics, and one-time passwords, in compliance with regulations set by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The integrity of the electronic notarial book, or the register showing the chronological record of electronic notarial acts, is also safeguarded against tampering. Additionally, all data stored in the ENFs are protected under the Data Privacy Act.

The E-Notarization Rules applies exclusively to electronic documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) or Portable Document Format Archival (PDF/A). Paper documents with handwritten signatures, notarial wills, and depositions will continue to follow the 2004 Notarial Rules.

A part of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), this initiative aligns with the Supreme Court’s commitment to innovation and expanded access to justice by allowing notarization for electronic documents, including remote notarization through accredited software applications. This reform supplements the traditional mode of notarization under the 2004 Notarial Rules and marks a key milestone in the Court’s ongoing digital transformation.

The E-Notarization Rules takes effect 15 days after its publication on March 9, 2025.

Read the press release in full at https://tinyurl.com/5e9e7h4a.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, Rules on Electronic Notarization, at https://tinyurl.com/55zvmbrf.

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

14/02/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a notice to cancel a contract to sell real estate must be notarized under Republic Act No. 6552, popularly known as the Maceda Law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division upheld the validity of contracts to sell between State Investment Trust, Inc. (SITI) and spouses Carlos and Victoria Baculo (Spouses Baculo) after SITI failed to meet the Maceda Law’s cancellation requirements.

The Maceda Law’s purpose is to protect real estate buyers on installment payments against one-sided conditions in contracts.

SITI owned two parcels of land, which it offered to sell to Spouses Baculo through two contracts to sell. When the latter failed to complete payments, SITI sent letters demanding payment and, later, declaring the contracts to sell cancelled. The Spouses Baculo refused to vacate the property, leading Siti to file an ejectment case.

The SC ruled that while a seller may cancel a contract to sell under the Maceda Law on its own without going to court, it must still comply with Section 4 of the law, which requires: (1) a 60-day grace period for the buyer to settle overdue installments; (2) a notarized notice of cancellation from the seller; and (3) cancellation only after 30 days from the buyer’s receipt of the notarized notice.

In this case, the SC found that SITI’s letters were not notarized, and it failed to provide the required 60-day grace period, giving only five days to settle the balance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-notarized-notice-required-to-cancel-real-estate-contract-under-maceda-law/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/237934-state-investment-trust-inc-vs-carlos-baculo/.

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

03/02/2025

10/01/2025

The Supreme Court has reiterated that disciplining children, even if it results in physical injuries, does not automatically amount to child abuse. For such to be considered abuse, there must be clear intent to harm a child’s dignity.

This was the ruling of the Court in a Decision upholding the conviction of a father for child abuse after subjecting his 12-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son to violent and excessive discipline.

Under Section 3(b) of RA 7610, or the 𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵, any act that debases, degrades, or demeans a child’s dignity is considered child abuse.

The Supreme Court ruled that the father’s actions went beyond reasonable discipline, 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.

The Court emphasized that while parents have the right to discipline their children, such measures must not be violent, excessive, or disproportionate to their misbehavior.

The Court also noted that without the clear intent to harm a child’s dignity, the offender cannot be held liable for child abuse but can be charged with other crimes under the Revised Penal Code.

The Decision is from the Second Division of the Supreme Court, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-excessive-discipline-that-harms-a-childs-dignity-is-child-abuse/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268457-###-vs-people-of-the-philippines/.



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