What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 4pm Tuesday 9am - 4pm Wednesday 9am - 4pm Thursday 9am - 4pm Friday 9am - 4pm

https://www.facebook.com/674724939065388/

CPR Law, 158 Rizal Street Brgy 2 (Pob), Calamba (2026)

24/04/2026

⚖ The Legal Corner by CPR | SC: DSWD Certification Required for Surrendered Children in Adoption

The Supreme Court ruled that children must first be certified by the DSWD as legally available for adoption, even if voluntarily surrendered by a parent.

In a decision by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the Court upheld the denial of an adoption petition due to the lack of this certification. A mother had entrusted her child to another family, who later sought adoption with her consent, but courts denied it for non-compliance with RA 9523. Under RA 9523, a DSWD certification is mandatory for children who are surrendered, abandoned, neglected, or voluntarily committed.

The SC clarified that voluntarily entrusted children are considered “voluntarily committed,” making DSWD certification mandatory to ensure child protection.
Exceptions apply to adoptions by biological parents, step-parents, or relatives by fourth degree. The Court noted the adopter may still proceed through proper legal channels under RA 11642.

Source:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/PRESS-RELEASE-SC-DSWD-Certification-Still-Required-for-Adoption-of-Surrendered-Children.pdf

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

11/04/2026

⚖ The Legal Corner by CPR | Oil Deregulation Law in the Philippines

The Republic Act No. 8479 liberalized the downstream oil industry by removing government control over fuel pricing and allowing qualified entities to freely import, distribute, and sell petroleum products.

Under this law, oil companies may set their own prices based on global oil costs, supply and demand, and market competition. The government’s role is to monitor the industry and prevent anti-competitive practices such as cartelization and price manipulation.

The law also encourages the entry of new players and promotes investments in oil facilities to ensure a stable and efficient supply.

Today, this law explains why fuel prices in the Philippines frequently change, often weekly. Price increases are usually driven by global factors, such as supply disruptions, geopolitical tensions, or higher international demand.

While the government cannot directly control fuel prices, it may provide targeted assistance or subsidies to affected sectors and continue to ensure fair market practices.

In effect, local fuel prices reflect movements in the global oil market, which is why consumers immediately feel the impact of international price changes.

Source: Republic Act No. 8479
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1998/ra_8479_1998.html

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

27/03/2026

⚖️ The Legal Corner by CPR | Key laws that protect and empower women in the Philippines

In observance of Women’s Month, it is important to highlight key laws that protect and uphold the rights of women.

The Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710) guarantees gender equality and prohibits all forms of discrimination against women. It mandates government agencies to implement gender-responsive policies and programs, while extending protection to women in marginalized sectors.

The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262) provides protection against physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse. It grants victims access to legal remedies, including protection orders, and requires authorities to respond and provide support services.

The Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313), also known as the “Bawal Bastos Law,” penalizes gender-based sexual harassment in public spaces, workplaces, educational institutions, and online platforms, and requires institutions to establish preventive and reporting mechanisms.

These laws reflect the State’s continuing commitment to safeguarding women’s rights and promoting a safe and equitable society.

Awareness of these protections is essential in empowering women and ensuring access to justice.

Sources:
https://pcw.gov.ph/magna-carta-of-women/
https://pcw.gov.ph/faq-republic-act-9262/
https://pcw.gov.ph/republic-act-11313-safe-spaces-act/

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

24/03/2026

⚖️ The Legal Corner by CPR | SC Dismisses Challenge to Manila Garbage Fee Ordinance

The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition questioning a Manila City ordinance that revised garbage collection fees.

In a Resolution, the SC En Banc ruled that the petition filed by John Barry T. Tayam against then Manila Mayor Francisco M. Domagoso and the City Council did not meet the requirements for judicial review.

The ordinance, Ordinance No. 9151, enacted in November 2025, updated garbage collection fees in Manila for the first time since 2013.

Tayam, a resident of Las Piñas, argued that the ordinance was invalid due to lack of publication and that the increased fees were excessive and inconsistent with the Local Government Code of the Philippines and the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.

The Court rejected these arguments, ruling that Tayam lacked legal standing because he is not directly affected by the ordinance, which applies only to persons and entities within Manila.

The SC also held that the case could not qualify as a taxpayer’s suit, explaining that the ordinance imposes regulatory fees rather than taxes. It further found that the petition raised factual issues—such as publication, public hearings, and the reasonableness of fees—which must first be determined by lower courts.

Finally, the Court ruled that the petition violated the hierarchy of courts, as it was filed directly with the SC without sufficient justification.

The decision emphasizes that cases involving factual questions must first be brought before the proper Regional Trial Court.

(Based on SC Resolution, G.R. No. E-04417, February 25, 2026)
Source:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/PRESS-RELEASE-SC-Rejects-Challenge-to-Manila-Ordinance-Raising-Garbage-Collection-Fee.pdf

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

13/03/2026

The Legal Corner by CPR | Buyers Must Verify Land Ownership Beyond the Title

In G.R. No. 254046, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that land buyers must exercise due diligence by checking both the certificate of title and the records in the Registry of Deeds before purchasing property.

In a decision written by Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division affirmed the rulings of the lower courts voiding the titles of the Spouses Manalese. The properties originally belonged to the late Spouses Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras, whose estate was represented by their administrator, Danilo S. Ferreras. He challenged the sale, alleging that Carina Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale, which she later used to sell the properties to the spouses.

The Court emphasized that buyers can not rely solely on a clean title, especially when warning signs are present. Since records in the Registry of Deeds already showed irregularities, the spouses were deemed to have constructive notice and could not claim to be buyers in good faith.

The ruling highlights the importance of verifying property records to avoid fraudulent land transactions.

Source: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/ #:~:text=The%20grant%20to%20the%20Court,6)

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

05/03/2026

⚖️The Legal Corner by CPR | SC: Corporate Officers Personally Liable for Seafarers’ Disability Claims

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that corporate officers of manning agencies can be held solidarily liable with both the agency and its foreign principal for a seafarer’s disability claims.

In a decision written by Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court reinstated the award of USD 60,000 in disability benefits to the seafarer and declared a corporate officer of Magsaysay Maritime Corporation jointly and severally liable.

The Court underscored that Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 provides for the joint and several liability of corporate officers for money claims arising from overseas employment. This is further supported by POEA regulations requiring corporate officers to submit a verified undertaking as a condition for the agency’s license.

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

27/02/2026

⚖️The Legal Corner by CPR | SC Voids Extrajudicial Foreclosure Conducted Without Valid Power of Sale

In G.R. No. 228919, Luzviminda Palo v. Spouses Rey C. Baquirquir and Fleurdeline B. Baquirquir, Takeshi Nakamura, Atty. Orpha T. Casul-Arendain (August 23, 2023), the Supreme Court (SC) declared an extrajudicial foreclosure sale invalid.

Palo obtained a loan from Nakamura, secured by a real estate mortgage over her property in Cebu. After an alleged default, Nakamura initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135, and the property was sold at public auction to Spouses Baquirquir, who were later issued a new title.

Palo challenged the foreclosure, arguing that Nakamura did not have a valid express power of sale, which is required under Act No. 3135 for an extrajudicial foreclosure to be valid.

The SC agreed. It ruled that a mortgage contract must contain a clear and specific grant of authority allowing the mortgagee to sell the property without court intervention. A general foreclosure clause is not enough. As this requirement was not properly established, the Court nullified the foreclosure, certificate of sale, and transfer of title.

The ruling underscores the need for strict compliance with Act No. 3135 to protect property owners’ rights.

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/228919-luzviminda-palo-vs-spouses-rey-c-baquirquir-and-fleurdeline-b-baquirquir-takeshi-nakamura-atty-orpha-t-casul-arendain/

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

23/02/2026

⚖️The Legal Corner by CPR | SC Affirms Property Rights of Same-Sex Partners

The Supreme Court (SC) held that same-sex partners who cohabit may be treated as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the Family Code, so long as there is clear proof of actual financial contribution.

The case involved two women who acquired a house and lot in Quezon City during their relationship. Although the property was titled in only one partner’s name, a written acknowledgment showed that the other had paid roughly half of the purchase and renovation expenses. After they separated, the titled partner refused to sell the property and denied any co-ownership.
While the lower courts dismissed the claim, the SC overturned their decisions. It ruled that the signed acknowledgment constituted sufficient evidence of contribution, thereby establishing co-ownership under the law.

The Court explained that because Philippine law does not currently allow same-sex marriage, property relations of same-sex couples are governed by Article 148, which recognizes shared ownership only to the extent of each partner’s proven contribution.

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-recognizes-co-ownership-of-property-in-same-sex-relationships

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

06/02/2026

⚖️The Legal Corner by CPR | SC Dismisses Adultery Case; Only Offended Spouse May File Complaint

The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed an adultery case, emphasizing that only the offended spouse may personally file the complaint, since adultery and concubinage are classified as private crimes.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division set aside the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, which had ordered the revival of the adultery charges against Aurel and Michael. The complaint was filed by a representative of the husband, rather than by the offended spouse himself.

The Court cited Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, stressing that a complaint filed through a representative—even if supported by the spouse’s affidavit—does not satisfy the legal requirement.

According to the SC, the law preserves the offended spouse’s discretion to decide whether to pursue criminal charges or address the matter privately, in order to avoid unnecessary public exposure and scandal.

Because no valid complaint was personally filed by the offended spouse, the adultery case was dismissed.

In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen underscored the importance of strictly applying the law, noting that issues involving marital infidelity are inherently private and should not be intruded upon by the State.

G.R. No. 277020 (Aurel Ann Chua Chiba v. Jin Chiba and Michael Llona), May 19, 2025
(Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-extends-suspended-sentence-for-offender-who-was-a-child-at-time-of-qualified-rape/

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦

30/01/2026

⚖️ The Legal Corner by CPR | Supreme Court Allows Removal of Annotation on Reconstituted Land Title

The Supreme Court (SC) rejected the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines and allowed the removal of an annotation on Antonio V. Mitra’s land title.

Mitra owns a property in Quezon City. His original transfer certificate of title (TCT) was lost, so he applied for administrative reconstitution, a legal process under Republic Act No. 26 that restores lost or destroyed land titles. The reissued title contained an annotation meant to protect any prior claims on the property. After 27 years with no claims filed, Mitra asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to remove the annotation. The RTC granted the request, the Court of Appeals agreed, and the SC upheld these rulings.

The SC ruled that posting and publication requirements apply only when a request to remove the annotation is filed within two years from the reconstitution of the title. Since the request was made long after this period, the requirements no longer applied.

The decision provides clear guidance to trial courts on when annotations on reconstituted land titles may be removed under RA 26.

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines

𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦.

Press Briefer:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/20260128-Press-Briefer.pdf

CPR Law

24/04/2026

11/04/2026

27/03/2026

24/03/2026

13/03/2026

05/03/2026

27/02/2026

23/02/2026

06/02/2026

30/01/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request

Monday	9am - 4pm
Tuesday	9am - 4pm
Wednesday	9am - 4pm
Thursday	9am - 4pm
Friday	9am - 4pm