https://www.facebook.com/229577063565258/

Liggayu, Barles and Associates Law Office

Home
Philippines
Tuguegarao City
Liggayu, Barles and Associates Law Office

Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Liggayu, Barles and Associates Law Office, Lawyer & Law Firm, 2/F Quintos Building, Enrile Boulevard, Carig Sur, Tuguegarao City.

19/08/2025

Pinawalang-sala ng ang dalawang indibidwal na inakusahan ng ilegal na pagsusugal dahil bigo ang mga pulis na umaresto sa kanila na magbigay ng malinaw na detalye tungkol sa pagsusugal.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, binaliktad ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na maysala kina Robert Plan (Plan) at Mark Oliver D. Enolva (Enolva) para sa paglabag sa P.D. No. 1602 na nagpapataw ng mas mabigat na parusa sa ilegal na pagsusugal.

Sa pagpapawalang-sala sa dalawa, dineklara ng Korte Suprema na hindi sapat ang ebidensya laban sa dalawa.

Napag-alaman ng Korte Suprema na nabigo ang mga pulis na patunayan na ang mga akusado ay talagang tumataya. Hindi makumpirma ng mga pulis ang denominasyon kahit na sinabi ng mga opisyal na nakakita sila ng pot money o kabuuang pusta sa sahig.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na para matiyak ang hatol sa pagsusugal, ang mga nanghuling opisyal ay dapat magpakita ng malinaw at tiyak na mga detalye tungkol sa mga operasyon ng pagsusugal. Kabilang dito ang pagtukoy sa mga manlalaro, ang larong nilalaro, ang taong tumataya, at ang aktwal na pera na ginamit.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/ms2xaktt.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/fvxypv2z.

Basahin ang Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://tinyurl.com/47ajp3md.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

ctto: SC PIO

11/08/2025

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.

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/.

ctto: SC PIO

09/06/2025

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division sent a case back to the Court of Appeals (CA) to give a Filipina a chance to properly prove the divorce laws of Kentucky, United States of America (U.S.A).

The Filipina married a Peruvian citizen in New Jersey, U.S.A; they later settled in Kentucky. Due to marital issues, the husband ended the marriage by obtaining a divorce decree from a Kentucky court.

The Filipina then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court in the Philippines to have the divorce recognized. She submitted a copy of the divorce decree, along with printouts of Kentucky and Peruvian marriage laws.

The SC clarified that in recognition of foreign divorce cases, what matters is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree. Since the divorce was granted in Kentucky, only Kentucky law needed to be proven.

The SC explained that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, a Filipino may remarry if their foreign spouse gets a valid divorce abroad that allows them to remarry. Philippine courts must first determine if the divorce was valid under the applicable foreign law, and the Filipino spouse must prove this law.

The SC also emphasized the relevance of the international law principle of comity of nations. This principle allows judicial acts of one country – such as court rulings or decrees – to be recognized in another, based on mutual respect between states. It also acknowledges the authority of a foreign state not only over its citizens but also over other individuals under its jurisdiction, like legal residents.

However, the SC returned the case to the CA to give the Filipina, who submitted a mere printout of Kentucky law, a chance to submit the proper documents.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4jhyh8vv.

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

ctto: SC PIO

05/06/2025

Narito ang mga dagdag na guidelines mula sa Korte Suprema:

1. Kung tumutol ang prosekusyon sa plea bargaining motion, lahat ng hindi binanggit na basehan ay ituturing na inabandona na.

2. Kung iilan lang sa basehan ng pagtutol ng prosekusyon ang tinalakay ng trial court, maaaring utusan ng mas mataas na hukuman o ng Korte Suprema ang korte na resolbahin ang mga natitirang isyu.

3. Kung hindi kumpleto ang mga record sa appellate court o Korte Suprema at hindi malinaw kung ano ang sitwasyon, maaari ring utusan ang mababang korte na muling pagdesisyunan ang kaso batay sa alituntunin sa Montierro at sa kasong ito.

Basahin ang buong press release sa https://tinyurl.com/y627x9fk.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/4pcu6ke3.

Basahin ang Concurring Opinion ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting sa https://tinyurl.com/5898sb24.

ctto: SC PIO

03/06/2025

?

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, pinawalang-bisa ng Korte Suprema ang kasal nina Leonora at Alfredo matapos mapatunayan na tumanggi si Alfredo na magbigay ng pinansyal na suporta sa kanyang pamilya at tuluyang iniwan si Leonora at kanilang mga anak simula 1994.

Napatunayan ding nagkaroon ng relasyon si Alfredo sa ibang mga babae.

Ayon sa Korte Suprema, nakasaad sa Article 68 ng Family Code na obligasyon ng mag-asawa na magsama, magpakita ng pag-ibig, respeto, at katapatan sa isa't isa, at magbigay ng tulong at suporta.

Ang pangangaliwa ni Alfredo, ang kanyang matagal na pagkawala sa tahanan at ang hindi pagbibigay ng suporta sa kanyang misis at anak ay nagpapakita na hindi nya naiintindihan ang kanyang mga obligasyon bilang asawa at ama.

GR NO. 242362

ctto: SC PIO

28/05/2025

Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na dapat na malinaw sa search warrant ang tinutukoy na lokasyong hahalughugin. Kung hindi, mawawalan ng bisa ang search warrant dahil sa paglabag sa karapatan laban sa mga unlawful search and seizure.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, pinawalang-sala ng Second Division ng Korte Suprema si Lucky Enriquez (Enriquez) sa mga krimen ng illegal possession of dangerous drugs at drug paraphernalia sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 o ang Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, dahil sa isang depektibong search warrant at irregular na pagpapatupad nito.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng Konstitusyon, kinakailangang ilarawan sa isang search warrant ang partikular na lugar na hahalughugin. Ang requirement na ito ay mahalaga upang mapigilan ang mga enforcing officers na magdesisyon sa kanilang sarili kung saan ang search, kung kanino, at kung ano ang iseize.

ctto: SC PIO

27/05/2025

?

Hindi kailangan ang psychological evaluation para patunayan ang psychological violence sa ilalim ng R.A. 9262 o ang Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC) Act.

G.R. No. 270257
(###270257 v. People and AAA)

ctto: SC PIO

23/05/2025

Hinatulang guilty ng Korte Suprema ang isang ama ng child abuse o paglabag ng RA No. 7610 o ang Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act matapos isailalim sa marahas at labis na disiplina ang kanyang 12-anyos na anak na babae at 10-anyos na anak na lalaki.

Sa ilalim ng Section 3(b) ng RA No. 7610, ang anumang pagkilos na nagpapababa sa dignidad ng isang bata ay itinuturing na child abuse.

Bagama't may karapatan ang mga magulang na disiplinahin ang kanilang mga anak, paalala ng Korte, ang mga naturang hakbang ay hindi dapat maging marahas, sobra-sobra, o higit p sa maling nagawa.
Ang Desisyon ay mula sa Second Division ng Korte Suprema na isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.

Basahin ang buong press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-excessive-discipline-that-harms-a-childs-dignity-is-child-abuse/

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268457-###-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

ctto: SC PIO

22/05/2025

FAQs with LBA Lawyers 😉

20/05/2025

?

Sa desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, ang forcible entry cases ay tungkol sa kung sino ang may hawak ng ari-arian at hindi tungkol sa pagmamay-ari nito.

G.R. No. 215766 (Rico v. Castillo, et al.)
Associate Justice Marquez

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa: https://
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-prior-possession-not-ownership-matters-in-forcible-entry-cases/.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa: https://
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/215166-edgar-m-rico-vs-ernie-toto-castillo-pifiano-jumo-gerry-villegas-alfrance-alicante-felix-yagao-john-does-and-marilou-lopez-a-k-a-ma-loreto-v-abella-lopez/.

ctto: SC PIO

19/05/2025

The Court clarified that previous Decisions stating that a woman cannot claim to be a r**e victim unless she resisted are contrary to current doctrine. These pronouncements also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity. The right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected.

The belief that if a woman does not resist, then she consents to the r**e is unacceptable in any civilized society. It presumes that men are entitled to free access to a woman’s body at any given time and place.

“Rape is perhaps the only crime where the trial often focuses on the conduct of the victim instead of that of the accused. The need to prove lack of consent often becomes a question of the victim's behavior, her history, and her conduct before, during, and after the r**e as implying that some women can be ‘bad enough’ to be r**ed while others, because of their background, choices, and conduct, are simply lying when they claim that they were r**ed. It is time to strike down such uninformed and ignorant views,” the Court stressed.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-proof-that-victim-resisted-not-required-in-r**e-cases/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266706-people-of-the-philippines-vs-zzz/

ctto: SC PIO

26/03/2024

Dear Valued Clients,

As we welcome the essence of Lent, we send our heartfelt wishes for a time of contemplation and spiritual enrichment. May you find peace, calmness, and strength in your bond with your faith.

In observance of this significant time, our law office will be closed from March 27, 2024 (PM) to March 31, 2024. We encourage you to embrace this opportunity to cherish moments with your loved ones.

Additionally, our office will likewise be closed from April 1st to April 5th as we will be attending a week-long conference in Manila. We will resume office on April 8th, 2024.

We sincerely appreciate your understanding and continued support. May this season be filled with blessing and grace.

Warm regards,
LBA Law Office

Address

2/F Quintos Building, Enrile Boulevard, Carig Sur
Tuguegarao City
3500

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Liggayu, Barles and Associates Law Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Want your practice to be the top-listed Law Practice in Tuguegarao City?