Laja & Associates Law Offices

26/02/2026

SELLING
Location: Sto. Niño, Zamboanga City
Area: 1,000 SQM
Description: House and Lot, with Fence and Gate

Interested prospects pls. contact:
ATTY. LANOEL S. LAJA, CPA, REB, REA
LAJA & Associates Office
0917 156 8516
303 CTC Bldg., Mayor Jaldon St., Zamboanga City

25/12/2025

THANK YOU for the opportunities of serving you in 2025...We are excited TO SERVE YOU BETTER this 2026...Happy Holidays...

02/09/2025

SC reiterates Legal Remedies on Real Property Possession and/or Ownership Disputes

The (SC) has reiterated the rules in determining the appropriate legal actions for recovery of possession and/or ownership of land and the corresponding prescriptive periods in filing them. These remedies are: 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or ejectment, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖, and 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC 𝙀𝙣 𝘽𝙖𝙣𝙘 held that Lea Victa-Espinosa (Espinosa) correctly filed an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 to recover possession of her land within a year from dispossession. It explained that 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 may be filed not only when the dispossession lasted for a year but also when it lasted for a year or less when there is no allegation that the deprivation is by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

The SC also ruled that Espinosa’s action is not 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 as she did not seek in her complaint the recovery of ownership of the land.

After purchasing the property, Espinosa found that Spouses Noel and Leny Agullo were occupying a part of it. When they refused to leave despite her demand, Espinosa filed a complaint for recovery of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The RTC dismissed the complaint for being filed too early. It explained that Espinosa may still file forcible entry, an ejectment suit, within one year from the time she learned of the deprivation of physical possession of the land. Since an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 can only be filed after that one-year period, RTC ruled that her complaint was premature.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that Espinosa’s complaint was not an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 but an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖, as she sought to recover possession based on her ownership of the property.

In their Petition before the SC, Spouses Agullo sought to reinstate the ruling of the RTC dismissing the case and insisted that Espinosa’s case was an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 that was filed prematurely, as less than a year had passed since the alleged dispossession.

The Court denied the Petition but clarified that the action is not accion reivindicatoria but accion publiciana. It reiterated the actions available for recovery of possession and/or ownership of land:

• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or a summary ejectment case;
• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖; and
• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or summary ejectment proceeding is filed to recover physical possession of land when the dispossession was due to force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and has not lasted for more than a year.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 is filed when the dispossession lasted for more than a year, or even for a year or less, if it is not due to force, intimidation, or similar means.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 is filed to recover both ownership and possession based on that ownership.

The Court explained that in 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖, the issue is who has the better right to possess the land, without necessarily claiming ownership. In contrast, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 involves determining who owns the land, with possession granted to the rightful owner.

As what is sought in the complaint is recovery of possession and not ownership, and there is no allegation that Spouses Agullo disputed Espinosa’s title, the action is 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 and not 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

The Court also held that contrary to the findings of the RTC, the action was not premature, because 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 may be filed even within one year from dispossession if no force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth was used. Since Espinosa did not claim that Spouses Agullo used any of these means, the action was correctly filed not as ejectment suit but 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖.

The SC thus ordered the RTC to proceed to trial and decide the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/y7nr9hzx

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/38e2xzfa

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

26/10/2024

Elements of Illegal Recruitment:
"To prove illegal recruitment two elements must be shown, namely:
(1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities, or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended; and
(2) said person does not have a license or authority to do so."

A negative fact that is an element of an offense, such as the non-possession of a license, needs to be positively proved by the prosecution. As with all criminal cases, the burden of proof is entirely and solely on the prosecution. "This is the essence of the presumption of innocence; the accused need not even do anything to establish his [or her] innocence as it is already presumed."

(People V Sonia Valle, G.R. No. 235010, August 7, 2024)

07/09/2024

Best of Luck Crimsons and the rest of the Barristers.... 🙏💪💪💪🙏

23/07/2024

📣We want to extend our heartfelt gratitude to JCI ZAMBOANGA LA BELLA and all the partnering organizations for organizing and supporting our legal ⚖️ mission earlier today. Your dedication and effort have made a significant impact, and we are deeply appreciative of your hard work and commitment to our community. Thank you!

10/04/2024

Sending heartfelt Eid greetings, albeit a bit late! May the light of Eid illuminate your path with happiness, love, and prosperity. Wishing you and your family abundant blessings and joyous moments to cherish. Once again, Eid Mubarak everyone! 💚💛💜🤍

02/01/2024

SC: Only Authorized Representatives of Taxpayer May Receive BIR Preliminary Assessment Notice |

Similar with the Formal Assessment Notice (FAN), the personal delivery of the Notice of Informal Conference (NIC) and the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) must be served only upon the taxpayer or his/her duly authorized representatives.

This was the ruling of the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by Mannasoft Technology Corporation (Mannasoft). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc which had upheld the deficiency tax assessments issued against Mannasoft.

In granting Mannasoft’s petition, the Court stressed that when the CIR finds that proper taxes should be assessed, the taxpayer must be properly notified of its findings, in accordance with Section 228 of the Tax Code. Further, Section 3.1.4 of Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 12-99 states that personal delivery of the formal letter of demand and assessment notice must be acknowledged by the taxpayer or his/her duly authorized representative. The same provision requires the signee-recipient to indicate their “designation and authority to act for and in behalf of the taxpayer.”

The Court held that such requirements are necessary for “unless the recipient possesses a certain degree of authority or discretion, they would be unable to grasp the gravity of the service of an assessment notice and the potential impact it would have to the taxpayer they purport to serve and represent.” “This is especially true for juridical entity taxpayers who can only act through its officers and employees, and who would otherwise be prejudiced by such recipient’s simple ignorance,” stressed the Court. The Court also clarified that while the provisions of RR 12-99 governing the NIC and the PAN bear no similar qualifications for personal delivery as those found under Section 3.1.4, “the Court deems it more in keeping with the spirit of the law that these should likewise be served only upon the taxpayer or, especially for juridical entities, their duly authorized representatives.” The Court held that such an interpretation is consistent with the oft-repeated principle that the sending and actual receipt of the PAN is part and parcel of the due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment that the BIR must strictly comply with.

In the present case, the Court found that those who received the subject NIC and PAN were not authorized representatives of Mannasoft. As the NIC and the PAN were not properly served on Mannasoft, the succeeding FAN was void and without effect, ruled the Court. The Court added that even if the NIC and PAN were deemed properly served on Mannasoft, the FAN is still void for being improperly served on a reliever security guard who was not even an employee of Mannasoft, and whose authority was not indicated in the stamp receipt, contrary to the requirement in Section 3.1.4 of RR 12-99.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-only-authorized-representatives-of-taxpayer-may-receive-bir-preliminary-assessment-notice/. Read G.R. No. 244202 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/244202-mannasoft-technology-corporation-vs-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/.

05/12/2023

https://www.youtube.com/live/knNn4nWo7yU?si=5fVYSD0tshzpr3vV

Results of the 2023 Bar ExaminationsJustice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, 2023 Bar Chair, announces the Results of the 2023 Bar Examinations.

27/11/2023

SC: Only Registered and Licensed Architects May Sign Architectural Documents |

With the enactment of the Architecture Act, only registered and licensed architects may prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents as listed under Section 302(4)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division, through Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, granting the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by the Department of Public Works and Highways and the United Architects of the Philippines. The petitions challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals which had reversed the Regional Trial Court’s decision upholding the validity and constitutionality of Sections 302(3) and 302(4) of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1096 or the National Building Code of the Philippines.

The Architecture Act of 2002, effective April 10, 2004, emphasized the importance of architects in nation-building and aimed for comprehensive regulation of the registration, licensing, and practice of architecture. The DPWH subsequently amended the Revised Implementing Rules of the National Building Code, specifically introducing Section 302(3) limiting the authority to prepare architectural documents to architects and Section 302(4) detailing what constitutes architectural documents.

This led to a legal challenge by respondents, Leo Cleto Gamolo and the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc., seeking to declare Sections 302(3) and 302(4) void. The Regional Trial Court initially denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals overturned this decision, declaring the contested sections void.

The Court, in resolving conflicting provisions between the Civil Engineering Law (RA 544) and the Architecture Act, determined that the Architecture Act impliedly repealed the Civil Engineering Law concerning the preparation, signing, and sealing of architectural documents by civil engineers. The Court highlighted legislative intent in providing limitations on civil engineers' authority in building construction matters.

Additionally, the Court addressed conflicting versions of the National Building Code and concluded that the published version in the Official Gazette prevails over the copy stored in the National Library. Therefore, only the version in the Official Gazette, which did not include the phrase allowing civil engineers to prepare architectural plans, holds legal effect.

In summary, the Supreme Court ruled that only registered and licensed architects are authorized to prepare, sign, and seal specified architectural documents, while only registered and licensed architects, or interior designers, may prepare, sign, and seal the architectural interior/interior design documents enumerated under Section 302(4)(b) of the same rules, emphasizing the significance of the Architecture Act in regulating the architectural practice and superseding conflicting provisions.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-only-registered-and-licensed-architects-may-sign-architectural-documents/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/200015-205846-department-of-public-works-and-highways-vs-philippine-institute-of-civil-engineers-inc-and-leo-cleto-gamolo-united-architects-of-philippines-vs-philippine-institute-of-civil-engineer/.

12/10/2023

With grit and determination, you will succeed.