Racca Law Office

29/05/2026

16/04/2026

Atty. Maria Zarah R. Villanueva-Castro, Bar Examiner in Commercial Law (2022) and in Commercial and Taxation Laws (2024), and Vice-President and Head of Corporate Legal of MERALCO, discusses stock ownership and intra-corporate disputes in Episode 112: Corporate Control Amid Intra-Corporate Disputes.

How do you establish yourself as a stockholder of the corporation? What kind of evidence does the court consider necessary to prove stock ownership? What constitutes a valid quorum in a stockholders' meeting?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7oLJmuQOyvHec4no3kcrTK?si=EGwO7e2GRvubFSaJD1QBNQ

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000760621341

YouTube: https://youtu.be/JwaxsV2RICw

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1bvZUHYshq/

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

16/04/2026

Nilinaw ng ang pagtatangi sa aplikasyon ng acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Republic Act (RA) Blg. 7610, o ang Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, at acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinagtibay ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na guilty kay Jeffrey L. Gramatica (Gramatica) para sa acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Seksyon 5(b) ng RA 7610, pero binago ang hatol sa isa pang akusado, si ###2660399, at inilapat ang acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Artikulo 366 ng Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Sa mga pinagsamang kasong ito na kinasasangkutan ng mga menor de edad na sina AAA, BBB, at CCC, naglatag ang Korte Suprema ng mga patnubay para matiyak ang wastong pagsasakdal ng mga kaso sa ilalim ng dalawang magkaibang batas na ito.

Kinasuhan si Gramatica ng acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Seksyon 5(b) ng RA 7610 dahil sa pakikipagtalik kina AAA at BBB, na kapwa nalulong sa shabu.

Samantala, kinasuhan naman si ###266039 ng kaparehong kaso dahil sa panghihipo sa maseselang bahagi ng katawan ng kanyang apo na si CCC habang ito’y natutulog.

Depensa ni Gramatica, niligawan niya si BBB at nagkaroon sila ng sekswal na pagsasama pero hindi niya alam na isa itong menor de edad. Itinanggi naman ni ###266039 ang mga akusasyon at sinabing ginising lang niya si CCC para humingi ng tulong sa paglagay ng gamot sa mata.

Kapwa nagdesisyon ang Regional Trial Court at Court of Appeals na parehong nagkasala sina Gramatica at ###266039 ng acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Seksyon 5(b) ng RA 7610 laban kina BBB at CCC.

Ang isang menor de edad ay sinasabing ginawan ng iba pang pang-aabusong sekswal kapag sila ay naging biktima ng acts of lasciviousness nang may kasamang pamimilit o impluwensiya ng nakatatanda. Sa kasong ito, 14 lang si BBB at 17 si CCC noong nangyari ang insidente. Si Gramatica ay 23, samantalang si ###266039 ay 62.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang hatol kay Gramatica sa ilalim ng RA 7610, ngunit binago ang hatol ni ###266039 sa acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Revised Penal Code (RPC). Ayon sa Korte, hindi angkop ang RA 7610 kung ang menor de edad ay ganap na walang kamalayan, pinilit lang, o walang kamalay-malay, dahil sa ganitong sitwasyon, hindi maituturing na sumang-ayon ang biktima sa pakikipagtalik.

Sa ilalim ng Seksyon 5 ng RA 7610, ang mga batang biktima ay sumailalim sa iba pang anyo ng sekswal na pang-aabuso bilang nakikilahok sa pakikipagtalik o malisyosong gawaing sekswal dahil sa pamimilit o impluwensiya ng isang nakatatanda.

Para malinaw ang saklaw ng acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng RA 7610 at sa ibang kaugnay na krimen sa ilalim ng RPC, naglatag ang Korte Suprema ng mga patnubay at isinasaalang-alang din ang RA 11648 na nagtaas ng edad ng sexual consent sa 16 taong gulang.

Una, angkop ang Seksyon 5(b) sa mga batang may edad 16 hanggang mas mababa sa 18 na sumasailalim sa sekswal na pang-aabuso.

Ikalawa, saklaw nito ang mga sitwasyon kung saan may depektibong pahintulot. Maaaring tila sumasang-ayon ang menor de edad, ngunit hindi ito bunga ng malayang kalooban kundi dahil sa pamimilit o impluwensiya ng isang nakatatanda. Kaya’t isang krimen ang pakikipagtalik sa batang pinagsamantalahan sa prostitusyon o sumailalim sa sekswal na pang-aabuso, kahit pa tila may pahintulot.

Ikatlo, hindi ito naaangkop kung ang akto ay may kasamang puwersa, pananakot, panlilinlang, pag-alis ng katinuan, kawalan ng malay, o matinding pang-aabuso ng awtoridad. Sa ganitong mga kaso, ang krimen ay papasok sa acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng RPC.

Ikaapat, kung ang biktima ay wala pang 12 o wala pang 16 taong gulang, at hindi saklaw ng Seksyon 5(b), ang krimen ay r**e o acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng RPC.

Sa kasong ito, si BBB ay isang batang pinagsamantalahan sa prostitusyon o iba pang sekswal na pang-aabuso dahil nakipagtalik siya kay Gramatica kapalit ng isang konsiderasyon, ang shabu, kaya may kriminal na pananagutan si Gramatica sa ilalim ng Seksyon 5(b) ng RA 7610.

Samantala, hindi naaangkop ang Seksyon 5(b) ng RA 7610 kay ###266039. Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na hindi saklaw ng RA 7610 ang lahat ng acts of lasciviousness laban sa mga menor de edad na may edad 12 hanggang mas mababa sa 18. Ang batas ay naaangkop lamang kapag ang mga menor de edad ay nagbigay ng depektibong pahintulot sa gawaing sekswal.

Sa kasong ito, hindi sumang-ayon si CCC sa acts of lasciviousness dahil natutulog siya at wala siyang malay. Hindi ginamit ni ###266039 ang pamimilit o impluwensiya, kundi umasa sa kanyang moral na awtoridad bilang lolo niya, na itinuturing bilang pananakot. Dahil dito, pananagutan ni ###266039 ang acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Artikulo 336 ng RPC, sa halip na RA 7610.

Para sa acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Seksyon 5(b) na kinasasangkutan si BBB, hinatulan si Gramatica ng maximum na 17 taon, apat na buwan, at isang araw na pagkakakulong at iniutos na magbayad kay BBB ng PHP 150,000 bilang kabayaran at danyos, pati na rin ng multa na PHP 15,000.

Para sa acts of lasciviousness sa ilalim ng Artikulo 336 ng RPC, hinatulan si ###266039 ng maximum na anim na taon na pagkakakulong at iniutos na magbayad kay CCC ng PHP 450,000 bilang kabayaran at danyos na may karampatang interes.

Kinilala ng Korte Suprema na sa ilalim ng kasalukuyang mga batas, si ###266039, na gumawa ng kasuklam-suklam at asal-hayop na gawain laban sa kanyang menor de edad na apo, ay nahaharap sa mas mababang parusa kumpara sa RA 7610. Hinimok nito ang lehislatura na amyendahan ang umiiral na mga batas upang mas maprotektahang mabuti ang mga bata.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162863.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162842.

Basahin ang Hiwalay na Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-separate-concurring-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/.

Basahin ang Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-concurring-opinion-associate-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/.

Basahin ang Hiwalay na Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-separate-concurring-opinion-associate-justice-rodil-v-zalameda/.

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

16/04/2026

Ayon sa NPC Advisory Opinion No. 2025-017, ang mga school records gaya ng grade breakdowns, examinations, quizzes, performance evaluations, at pati na ang teacher comments ay itinuturing na personal data, partikular na bilang sensitive personal information sa ilalim ng Data Privacy Act (DPA).

Hmmm....

Answer in the comment section 👇

17/01/2026

📝: Ano ang kailangan gawin kung nawala ang iyong Duplicate Owner’s Certificate of Title?

18/12/2025

The (SC) has held that while financial details of bank deposits remain confidential, the Cybercrime Prevention Act allows disclosure of bank account holder information for cybercrime investigations.

The (SC) has held that while financial details of bank deposits remain confidential, the Cybercrime Prevention Act allows disclosure of bank account holder information for cybercrime investigations.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by EastWest Rural Bank (EastWest), which questioned the warrant to disclose computer data (WDCD) issued by the court and the subsequent Disclosure Order issued by the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG) which required EastWest to disclose bank account holder information.

This EastWest bank account holder information sought to be disclosed is the account where Leonard Vendiola’s money was transferred after he was scammed by a caller posing as a bank employee.

Vendiola reported to the PNP-ACG that a caller who introduced herself as a bank employee deceived him by promising rewards contingent to disclosing his email and one-time password. When he checked his bank account, he discovered that an amount of PHP 10,000 was transferred to an EastWest account.

PNP-ACG applied for a WDCD to identify the EastWest account holder involved in the alleged scam. This was granted by the Regional Trial Court which authorized the PNP-ACG to compel EastWest to disclose and preserve data relating to the account holder. Pursuant to this, the PNP-ACG issued a Disclosure Order to EastWest.

EastWest filed a petition with the Court of Appeals challenging the WDCD and arguing that the Bank Secrecy Law prohibits banks from revealing any information about bank deposits, including the identity of the account holder. It maintained that this rule remains in force because it was not repealed by the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

EastWest also asserted that it should not be subject to the Cybercrime law’s disclosure rules because it is a financial institution rather than a communications service provider.

The SC rejected these arguments and upheld the validity of the WDCD and Disclosure Order.

The SC clarified that while the Bank Secrecy Law protects the confidentiality of bank deposits and their financial details, it does not prevent the disclosure of basic identifying information when allowed by law. Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, law enforcement agencies may, with a court-issued warrant, require the disclosure of computer data necessary to investigate cybercrime offenses.

The SC ruled that EastWest is considered a service provider under the Cybercrime Prevention Act because their digital banking services, such as online banking platforms, mobile applications, and automated email notifications, allow customers to communicate and transact through computer systems. As a banking institution, EastWest also processes and stores substantial amounts of computer data both in the course of its operations and on behalf of its customers, placing it within the law’s coverage for the disclosure of computer data when authorized by a court-issued warrant.

Read the full text of the press release at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157653

Read the full text of the Decision at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157646

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

23/11/2025

𝙒𝙃𝘼𝙏 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝙎𝙏𝙄𝙏𝙐𝙏𝙀𝙎 𝘿𝙐𝙀 𝘿𝙄𝙇𝙄𝙂𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙀 𝙄𝙉 𝙋𝙐𝙍𝘾𝙃𝘼𝙎𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙇𝘼𝙉𝘿, 𝘼𝙉𝘿 𝙒𝙃𝘼𝙏 𝙌𝙐𝘼𝙇𝙄𝙁𝙄𝙀𝙎 𝘼 𝘽𝙐𝙔𝙀𝙍 𝘼𝙎 𝘼𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙄𝙉 𝙂𝙊𝙊𝘿 𝙁𝘼𝙄𝙏𝙃?

You just do not rely on title, meaning the owner's duplicate copy of title; you should look at the registry itself. You look at the primary entry book because that is where you will find out the history of the property. And that's the diligence that is required. That is what will make you a buyer in good faith.

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose Lorenzo R. dela Rosa, a member of the Remedial Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses key issues on land titles and the steps buyers should take before acquiring properties in Episode 95: Protecting the Integrity of Land Titles.

What is a reconstituted title, and how is it different from the original title or the owner's duplicate? What remedies are available to buyers defrauded by sellers?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4NcLjdE0axrvAej7wGMueu?si=8BzkNdj4QIufZoL1glN-Ow

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/episode-95-protecting-the-integrity-of-land-titles/id1852172756?i=1000737742658

YouTube: https://youtu.be/KRcs30UAwwQ

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1MuvG4RZ8s/

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

18/11/2025

𝑾𝑯𝑨𝑻 𝑺𝑯𝑶𝑼𝑳𝑫 𝑩𝑼𝒀𝑬𝑹𝑺 𝑨𝑵𝑫 𝑳𝑬𝑵𝑫𝑬𝑹𝑺 𝑲𝑬𝑬𝑷 𝑰𝑵 𝑴𝑰𝑵𝑫 𝑾𝑯𝑬𝑵 𝑫𝑬𝑨𝑳𝑰𝑵𝑮 𝑾𝑰𝑻𝑯 𝑨𝑮𝑹𝑨𝑹𝑰𝑨𝑵 𝑹𝑬𝑭𝑶𝑹𝑴-𝑪𝑶𝑽𝑬𝑹𝑬𝑫 𝑳𝑨𝑵𝑫?

Buyers, you're warned: You cannot buy property within the 10-year [prohibitive] period [under RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988].
And for those who are willing to lend, yes, you may lend. Of course, you want security for the money that you're parting with. Just be warned that no sale can be effected within the 10-year period.

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose Lorenzo R. dela Rosa, a member of the Remedial Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses
mortgage and sale of properties under RA 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, in Episode 94: When Agrarian Land is Mortgaged or Sold.

What is Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988? What is the logic and wisdom behind the prohibition on the sale or transfer of awarded lands within 10 years of the award?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6YH60c0erH64qWOV3ABchQ?si=CVMIysfiSJ-0pRet8wGwnw

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000736719029

YouTube: https://youtu.be/MkfL9RK92hw

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19rssC3zrQ/

11/11/2025

Binigyang-diin ng na karaniwang walang bisa ang kasal na pinangasiwaan ng isang taong walang legal na awtoridad puwera na lang kung tapat na naniniwala ang isa o parehong mag-asawa na may awtoridad ang tao na nagsagawa ng kanilang kasal.

Binigyang-diin ng na karaniwang walang bisa ang kasal na pinangasiwaan ng isang taong walang legal na awtoridad puwera na lang kung tapat na naniniwala ang isa o parehong mag-asawa na may awtoridad ang tao na nagsagawa ng kanilang kasal.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez bago siya nagretiro, ibinasura ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petition for nullity of marriage na inihain ng isang misis na nagsasabing hindi isang hukom ang taong nangasiwa sa kanyang kasal gaya ng kanyang pinaniniwalaan.

Ikinasal ang mag-asawa sa Municipal Hall ng Tarlac City, Tarlac at nakasaad sa kanilang marriage contract na si Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia) ang solemnizing officer.

Gayunpaman, makalipas ang mahigit 20 taon, iginiit ng abogado ng misis na hindi si Judge De Gracia ang lalaki sa kanilang mga larawan sa kasal kundi si Rosalio Florendo na isang kapwa miyembro ng Tarlac City Rotary Club.

Ito ang naging dahilan para maghain ng petisyon ang babae sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) para ideklarang walang bisa ang kasal dahil sa kawalan ng awtoridad ng opisyal na nagkasal sa kanila.

Sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema, nabigo ang asawa na patunayan na walang awtoridad ang opisyal. Naipakita sa sertipiko ng kasal na noo’y nanunungkulan na hukom na may hurisdiksyon ng Tarlac City at may legal na awtoridad na magsagawa ng kasal sa ilalim ng Family Code si Judge De Gracia.

Binanggit ng Korte Suprema ang Article 3 ng Family Code (FC) na nagsasabing ang awtoridad ng solemnizing officer ang isa sa mga pormal na kinakailangan ng isang kasal na may bisa. Samantala, binibigyan ng Article 7 ng FC ang mga hukom sa kanilang hurisdiksyon ng nasabing awtoridad. Walang bisa ang kasal na ginawa ng isang tao na walang ganoong awtoridad sa ilalim ng Articles 4 and 35(2) ng FC maliban kung naniniwala in good faith ang isa o parehong partido na awtorisado ang opisyal na nagkasal kung saan may bisa pa rin ang kasal.

Bagamat nagsabi ang babae na hindi si Judge De Gracia ang nagkasal sa kanila, tinukoy ng Korte Suprema na walang ipinakitang ebidensiya para matukoy si Judge De Gracia o si Florendo.

Binigyang-diin din ng Korte Suprema na dapat na igalang ang legal na presumption pabor sa marriage contract na nagsasaad ng awtoridad ng solemnizing officer kung walang malinaw at matibay na ebidensya na kumukontra dito.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153254.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153241.

Basahin ang Hindi Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/267998-dissenting-opinion-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/.

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

19/09/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that being irresponsible in doing household chores and taking care of children may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that being irresponsible in doing household chores and taking care of children may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

In a 13-page decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between Arnold Alfonso and Michelle Pamintuan-Alfonso on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Arnold and Michelle were high school classmates. In 1997, or eight years after their graduation, they unexpectedly met. Since then, they have become close and regularly exchanged phone calls.

Despite being in a relationship with another man, Michelle often visited Arnold's apartment. Later on Michelle and Arnold spent the night at the latter's apartment, where the two engaged in unprotected sexual in*******se that resulted in Michelle's unexpected and unwanted pregnancy.

At first, Michelle was contemplating aborting the child, but Arnold convinced her otherwise and offered marriage. After the wedding, Michelle and Arnold resided at the parental house. They were blessed with three children.

A year later their relationship turned sour. Arnold noticed the changes in Michelle's behavior. Michelle would be verbally aggressive towards him, crying loudly to gain sympathy from their neighbors. She also refused to do household chores or care for their children, instead relying on her mother to fulfill her domestic responsibilities.

Arnold also observed that Michelle has a luxurious lifestyle, which caused her to obtain looming debts from various people. It reached the extent that Arnold's father paid Michelle's debt to save her from being sued.

Over time, Arnold felt Michelle's growing coldness towards him. Michelle disavowed fulfilling his sexual needs by making excuses that she is tired and not in the mood.

Sometime in 2010, Michelle informed Arnold that she had secured a job that required deployment to Bicol for one month. However, to his surprise, Arnold later learned that Michelle was having an affair with another man. Since then, Michelle has refused to communicate with him and their children.

This paved the way for Arnold to file a petition for nullification of their marriage on the ground of Michelle's psychological incapacity to fulfill her marital obligations.

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and nullified their marriage, but it was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. This prompted Arnold to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In granting Arnold's petition, the high court held that he was able to illustrate that the incapacity of Michelle was so grave or serious that it already impaired her from carrying out the required ordinary marital duties. It gave credence to the psychological report, which diagnosed Michelle with histrionic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

The SC also emphasized that the incapacity of Michelle was incurable, as the pattern of persistent failure to assume her essential marital obligations was proven. It also took into account the instance where Michelle entered into an illicit affair with another man.

“In every marriage lies the vinculum juris—the juridical bond that unites the spouses in a legally and morally binding union governed by law. This vinculum juris imposes upon each spouse the essential marital obligations of mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support,” the Supreme Court said.

“Thus, in the present case, we hold that Michelle's psychological incapacity existed prior to and during the celebration of the marriage; the vinculum juris is deemed never to have validly arisen,” it added.