Rinion & Rinion Law Office

08/10/2026

Inaprubahan ng 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 ng , sa sesyon nito noong Oktubre 7, 2026, ang mga pagbabago sa 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 (A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC) tungkol sa petisyon para kilalanin ang diborsyong nadeklara sa ibang bansa, kung saan hindi na kakailanganing patunayan ng asawang Pilipino ang banyagang batas at tanging ang mismong diborsyo na lang ang kailangan patunayan.

Sa ilalim ng mga pagbabago, na magkakabisa 15 araw matapos itong mailathala sa 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚 ng Korte Suprema, hindi na kailangang patunayan ng mga Pilipinong asawa na naghahain ng petisyon para kilalanin ang isang diborsyong isinagawa sa ibang bansa, alinsunod sa Artikulo 26(2) ng 𝙁𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙮 𝘾𝙤𝙙𝙚, kung ano ang naaangkop na batas ng nasabing bansa. Ang kailangan na lamang nilang patunayan ay na talagang naganap ang diborsyo sa ibang bansa.

Ipinakikilala ng mga pagbabago ang Seksyon 48-A ng Rule 39, na nagtatakda ng pagpapalagay na ang diborsyong isinagawa sa ibang bansa sa pagitan ng isang Pilipino at dayuhang asawa ay nagbibigay-daan sa dayuhang asawa na muling magpakasal alinsunod sa batas ng kanyang bansa, maliban kung malinaw na nakasaad mismo sa 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙚 ng diborsyo na ito ay isang limitadong uri lamang ng diborsyo.

Sa ilalim ng bagong tuntunin, ang panig na tumututol sa petisyon ang siyang kailangang magpatunay na hindi ganap ang diborsyo.

Ipinapalagay rin sa bagong tuntunin na tama at tumpak ang salin sa Ingles ng isang dokumento ng diborsiyo mula sa ibang bansa, basta’t pinanunumpaan ng tagapagsalin na ito ay wasto at tumpak.

Maaaring pabulaanan ang mga pagpapalagay na ito sa pamamagitan ng salungat na ebidensiya, alinsunod sa Seksyon 3 ng Rule 131.

Gayunman, hindi pinapalitan ng mga pagbabagong ito ang umiiral na legal na balangkas. Kinakailangan pa rin ang paghahain ng petisyon para sa 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 ng isang diborsiyong ipinagkaloob sa ibang bansa, at nananatiling pareho ang mga kahingiang itinatadhana sa Artikulo 26(2) ng 𝙁𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙮 𝘾𝙤𝙙𝙚.

Maaari pa ring tutulan ang pagkilala sa diborsiyong ipinagkaloob sa ibang bansa batay sa mga kadahilanan gaya ng kawalan ng hurisdiksiyon, kakulangan ng pabatid, panlilinlang, o malinaw na pagkakamali sa batas o sa mga pangyayari.

Inaprubahan ang mga pagbabagong ito batay sa rekomendasyon ni Kasangguning Mahistrado Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, at matapos makipag-ugnayan kina Kasangguning Mahistrado Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at Jhosep Y. Lopez, gayundin sa Sub-Technical Working Group on the Concerns of Overseas Working Filipinos Regarding the Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decrees/Reports (Sub-TWG).

Sa pamamagitan ng mga pagbabagong ito, layunin ng Korte Suprema na alisin ang mga hindi nararapat na balakid at gawing mas madali para sa mga Pilipino ang pagtamasa ng kanilang mga karapatang itinatadhana ng batas.

Basahin ang kabuuang 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝘽𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174621.

Ang buong teksto ng 𝙀𝙣 𝘽𝙖𝙣𝙘 𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 ng Korte Suprema, A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC, ay ipapaskil sa 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚 ng Korte Suprema sa sandaling ito ay maging available.

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

24/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

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

16/07/2026

Nagpasya ang na kung ang karahasang sikolohikal (psychological violence) ay ginawa sa pamamagitan ng Facebook, maaari itong ituring na paggamit ng information and communications technology (ICT). Dahil dito, puwedeng patawan ang gumawa nito ng mas mabigat na parusa alinsunod sa Seksyon 6 ng RA 10175 o Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

Sa isang Resolusyon na isinulat ni Kasangguning Mahistrado Ramon Paul L. Hernando, binago nang bahagya ngunit pinagtibay ng Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang nauna nitong Desisyon noong Oktubre 22, 2025. Sa naturang desisyon, pinanatili ang hatol na nagkasala ang isang indibidwal (###) dahil sa paggawa ng karahasang sikolohikal laban sa dati niyang kasintahan (AAA) sa ilalim ng Seksyon 5(i) ng Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, o ang Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act), matapos siyang mag-post ng mga mapanirang pahayag tungkol kay AAA sa Facebook.

Gayunman, nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na itaas ng isang antas ang parusa dahil ang paglabag ay ginawa sa pamamagitan ng Facebook, na malinaw na nakasaad sa sakdal at napatunayan sa paglilitis.

Nagsampa si AAA ng kasong VAWC laban sa dati niyang kasintahan na si ### matapos siyang mag-post sa Facebook ng pahayag kung saan tinawag niya si AAA na maruming babae at hayop, at nagbanta siyang susuntukin kapag nakita niya ito. Inulit pa ni ### ang mga panlalait sa mga komento sa naturang post na maaaring mabasa ng publiko.

Habang dinidinig ang kaso, iniharap ni AAA ang mga screenshot ng post sa Facebook at sinabi niyang siya ang gumawa ng account para kay ### kung saan nai-post ang naturang pahayag. Pinatunayan naman ng dalawa niyang kapatid na kay ### ang account at nakatanggap sila ng mga mensahe mula sa kanya gamit ang parehong account.

Sa kabila ng pagtanggi ni ###, pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema, sa desisyong inilabas nito, ang mga naging pasya ng Family Court at Court of Appeals (CA) na naghatol na nagkasala si ###. Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na sa mga kasong kriminal, kailangang mapatunayan ng prosekusyon hindi lamang ang mga elemento ng krimen kundi pati ang pagkakakilanlan ng gumawa nito. Pinagtibay din ng Korte Suprema ang parusang ipinataw ng CA kay ###, na kinabibilangan ng pagkakakulong mula anim na buwan at isang araw hanggang walong taon at isang araw, multang PHP 100,000, at pagsailalim sa psychological counselling o psychiatric treatment.

Sa pagresolba sa Motion for Reconsideration ni ###, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na napatunayang si ### ang gumawa ng post sa Facebook nang lampas sa makatwirang pagdududa (beyond reasonable doubt), batay sa mga pamantayang itinakda nito sa nauna nitong desisyon:

1. Pag-amin sa pagmamay-ari ng account o sa paggawa ng naturang post;
2. Pagkakaroon ng patunay na nakita ang akusado na gumagamit ng account o nagsulat ng naturang post;
3. Paglalaman ng impormasyon na tanging ang nagkasala o iilang tao lamang ang nakaaalam;
4. Paggamit ng mga salita o pananalitang naaayon sa karaniwang paraan ng pagpapahayag ng nagkasala;
5. Mga tala mula sa internet service provider, kumpanya ng telekomunikasyon, o social media site, pati na ang resulta ng pagsusuri sa mga digital device na nagpapakita ng lokasyon at iba pang katangiang nag-uugnay sa account sa nagkasala;
6. Mga kilos o gawain na naaayon sa mga nauna niyang post; o
7. Iba pang mga pangyayaring nagpapakita ng pagmamay-ari, paggamit, o paggawa ng account o post.

Dahil napatunayan na si ### ang gumawa ng post sa Facebook at natugunan ang lahat ng kinakailangang elemento ng karahasang sikolohikal, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na naaangkop ang Seksyon 6 ng Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Itinatakda ng probisyong ito ang pagpapataw ng mas mabigat na parusa sa mga krimen at paglabag na ginawa gamit ang ICT. Mas mabigat ang parusa dahil maaaring magamit ang ICT para makaiwas ang mga nagkasala sa pananagutan, makapinsala sa mas maraming tao, o magdulot ng mas malaking pinsala.

Batay sa kahulugan ng ICT, sinabi ng Korte na ang mga social media platform tulad ng Facebook ay maituturing na ICT systems dahil pinapayagan ng mga ito ang mga gumagamit na lumikha, magpadala, tumanggap, mag-imbak, at magproseso ng mga datos na elektronikong mensahe gamit ang mga kompyuter, mobile phone, o iba pang katulad na kagamitang elektroniko.

Sa kasong ito, nakasaad sa sakdal na ginawa ni ### ang post sa Facebook gamit ang kanyang “Facebook Messenger Account… na maaaring makita ng sinuman (set to public view).” Ayon sa Korte Suprema, sapat na ang pahayag na ito para ipakitang ginamit ang ICT bilang isang nagpapabigat na sirkumstansya. Bagaman hindi tahasang nabanggit ang terminong “ICT,” malinaw pa ring ipinaalam sa sakdal kay ### na siya ay inaakusahan ng paggawa ng karahasang sikolohikal laban kay AAA sa pamamagitan ng Facebook, na kabilang sa saklaw ng isang ICT system.

Napatunayan ng prosekusyon ang nasabing pahayag sa paglilitis.

Dahil dito, itinaas ng Korte ng isang antas ang parusa mula sa pagkakakulong na anim na buwan at isang araw hanggang walong taon at isang araw, tungo sa pagkakakulong na anim na taon at isang araw hanggang 14 na taon, walong buwan, at isang araw. Nanatili naman ang multang PHP 100,000. Inatasan din si ### na sumailalim sa psychological counselling o psychiatric treatment.

Basahin ang buong press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168987

Basahin ang buong kopya ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168968

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

04/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168319.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

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

27/02/2026

28/01/2026

Note to self: You are doing enough. 🌿

Allow yourself time to rest and recharge. 💜

28/01/2026

LEGAL EXPLAINER | RA 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009)

The crime of photo and video voyeurism may be committed in four ways:

1. By taking a photo or video coverage without consent, under circumstances where the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy ("reasonable expectation of privacy" means the person believes that he or she could undress in privacy, without being concerned that a photo or video of said person would be captured)

Here, the crime is committed when a person:
-takes a photo or video of a person performing a sexual act or any similar activity
-or captures an image of private areas (ge****ls, p***c area, buttocks, female breast).

In the picture below (hidden camera in a boarding house CR), the crime is already committed the moment the camera records, even if no one watches the footage.

2. By copying or reproducing such photo or video or recording of a sexual act or any similar activity

Even if the offender did not originally take the photo or video, liability arises if he or she:
-copies
-downloads
-screenshots
-saves
-or reproduces the photo or video.

Even private duplication (e.g., saving a copy on another device) is punishable.

This mode punishes the mere copying or reproducing, whether for profit or for free.

3. By selling or distributing (with or witout consideration) such photo or video or recording of a sexual act or any similar activity

This mode punishes the circulation or distribution of the photo or video (e.g., sending to friends, group chats). Distribution includes sharing via Messenger, Telegram, email, passing USBs or storage devices.

4. By publishing or broadcasting such photo or video or recording of a sexual act or any similar activity

This is the widest and most public form of the offense. The crime is committed by publishing in:
-print
-broadcasting on TV or radio
-uploading online (social media, p**n sites)
-exhibiting or showing through any digital or electronic means.

This provision is why news outlets must blur faces and avoid showing prohibited content, even if “newsworthy.”

Very important:

1. The victim can be a man or a woman, which means the offender can be a man or a woman.

2. Consent to record does NOT mean consent to copy, reproduce, sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast. This means that even if the person consented to the taking of the photo or recording of the video but not to the:
-copying
-reproduction
-sale
-distribution
-publication
-or broadcast of the photo or video, the law is still violated.

Penalty:
-imprisonment of 3 to 7 years
-or a fine of 100K to 500K
-or both such imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court

Ctto