PRV Law Office

PRV Law Office Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from PRV Law Office, Lawyer & Law Firm, Unit 1, 3J Commercial Bldg. , Gov. Padilla, Banga 1st, Plaridel, Bulacan.

10/02/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SCโ€™s Second Division granted a womanโ€™s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partnerโ€™s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜จ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜จ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜จ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

09/02/2026

Isinantabi ng ang kasong adultery na inihain ng kinatawan ng isang lalaki laban sa kanyang asawa. Muling iginiit ng Korte na tanging ang mismong asawang nasaktan o naagrabyado ang may karapatang magsampa ng ganitong kaso.

Sa isang desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., binaliktad ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang pasya ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) na nag-utos na muling buksan ang kasong adultery laban kina Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba at kapwa-akusado na si Michael Llona.

Nagsampa, sa pamamagitan ng isang kinatawan, ng kasong adultery at grave threats si Jin Chiba laban sa asawa niyang si Aurel at kay Michael.

Hindi pinagbigyan ng Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ang kasong adultery sa dahilang tanging ang mismong asawang naagrabyado lamang ang maaaring magsampa nito.

Binaliktad ng RTC ang desisyon ng MeTC at pinagtibay na tumugon sa mga pamantayang legal ang pagsasampa ng kaso, dahil nakalakip naman sa reklamong inihain ng kinatawan ni Jin ang mismong complaint-affidavit ni Jin.

Hindi ito sinang-ayunan ng Korte Suprema at muling iginiit na ang adultery ay isang pribadong krimen na maaari lamang usigin kung may reklamong inihain mismo ng asawang inagrabyado. Binanggit ng Korte ang Rule 110, Section 5, ng Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure at ang Article 344 ng Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na umiiral ang kahingiang ito โ€œbilang paggalang sa panig na inagrabyado, na maaaring mas piliing tiisin na lamang nang tahimik ang dinanas na paglabag kaysa humarap sa eskandalo ng isang pampublikong paglilitis.โ€ Pinahihintulutan ng batas ang asawang inagrabyado na magpasya kung dadalhin ba ang usapin sa hukuman o aayusin ito nang pribado.

Sa kasong ito, ang reklamong adultery ay hindi sinimulan ng mismong asawang inagrabyado kundi ng kanyang kinatawan. Bagaman nagsumite si Jin ng sarili niyang complaint-affidavit, ito ay isinama lamang bilang kalakip o annex sa reklamong inihain ng kanyang kinatawan.

Dahil hindi natugunan ang mga kahingian sa ilalim ng Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure at ng Revised Penal Code, itinuring ng Korte Suprema na walang wastong reklamo naisampa at tuluyan nitong ibinasura ang kaso.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159759

Basahin ang kabuuang teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159743

Basahin ang Concurring Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159748

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

29/01/2026

FREE LEGAL CONSULTATION

Our office will be offering a Free Legal Consultation to assist individuals who need legal guidance and advice.

๐Ÿ“… Date: January 31, 2026
โฐ Time: 9:00 AM โ€“ 12:00 NN
๐Ÿ“ Venue: Ground Floor, Unit 1, 3J Commercial Building, Governor Padilla Road, Banga 1st, Plaridel, Bulacan

๐Ÿ“ž For inquiries: 0993-303-6825 | 0975-362-4945

Slots may be limited. We encourage interested parties to contact us in advance.





Our office achieved a significant legal milestone!The Human Settlements Adjudication Commission, in its Decision dated 1...
20/01/2026

Our office achieved a significant legal milestone!

The Human Settlements Adjudication Commission, in its Decision dated 16 December 2025, rendered judgment in favor of our clientโ€”declaring the disputed election null and void and granting the reliefs prayed for.

30/12/2025

The has clarified that the proper term for the crime under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜—๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ (๐˜™๐˜—๐˜Š) is ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ and not ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SCโ€™s Third Division affirmed a manโ€™s conviction for ra**ng a 13-year-old girl, sentencing him to a maximum of 40 years in prison.

The accused was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals of ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ.

Under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC, ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ is committed when a man has sexual in*******se with a woman through force, threat, or intimidation.

The SC affirmed his conviction and also took the opportunity to clarify that the crime should be referred to as ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ instead of ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฑ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ:

โ€œAfter all, there is nothing โ€˜simpleโ€™ about R**e and referring to it in such a manner downplays its severity and desensitizes the public to the harm it inflicts,โ€ said the SC.

While ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ was initially classified as a crime against chastity under Article 335 of the RPC, Republic Act No. 8353, or the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜™๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ ๐˜“๐˜ข๐˜ธ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 1997, reclassified it as a crime against persons.

Crimes against chastity, such as adultery and seduction, are generally private crimes which focus on protecting the victimโ€™s honor.

On the other hand, crimes against persons, such as homicide, murder, and physical injuries, aim to protect individualsโ€™ bodily integrity and well-being.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

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

06/10/2025

The (SC) has nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charged on the unpaid bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrowerโ€™s consent.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SCโ€™s Special Third Division granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernandez, whose properties were foreclosed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) after they failed to pay a PHP 16-million loan.

Ang and Fernandez obtained a loan from UCPB. Based on the loan documents, however, UCPB was allowed to unilaterally adjust the interest rate every quarter based on market conditions.

When Ang and Fernandez failed to pay the total loan when it fell due, UCPB began to extrajudicially foreclose their properties.

Ang and Fernandez then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the foreclosure sale, claiming that because the bank had the sole power to set and increase the interest rate, the rate was unfair and invalid.

The SC initially agreed that the interest rate was invalid but still upheld the foreclosure sale, ruling that the borrowers remained in default.

Upon reconsideration, however, the SC ruled that if the interest rate was unconscionable or imposed unilaterally by the lender, then any foreclosure that follows is also invalid.

The Court emphasized that under the Civil Code, contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon. A contract that depends only on one partyโ€™s will is void.

In this case, the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB. Since the interest rate was invalid, the foreclosure of the properties was void.

The SC held that the borrowers should be given a chance to pay the loan at an interest rate agreed upon by both parties. Otherwise, they would be at the mercy of the lender and risk losing their property without a fair opportunity to settle their debt.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152735.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152719.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152726.

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

Address

Unit 1, 3J Commercial Bldg. , Gov. Padilla, Banga 1st, Plaridel
Bulacan
3004

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 6pm
Tuesday 8am - 6pm
Wednesday 8am - 6pm
Thursday 8am - 6pm
Friday 8am - 6pm

Website

Alerts

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

Share