Atty. Krizabelle Marie Batandolo

Atty. Krizabelle Marie Batandolo Lawyer | Notary Public

Legal Services Offered:
• Legal consultations (in-person or online)
• Contract drafting and review
• Demand letters, replies, and legal notices
• Affidavits, sworn statements, and SPAs
• Deeds of Sale, Donation, among others
• Extrajudicial settlement of estates
• Last Will & Testament preparation
• Legal representation in:
– Administrative hearings
– Civil cases (e.g., ejectment, collection,

small claims)
– Family law cases (e.g., custody, support, annulment)
– Labor disputes (e.g., illegal dismissal, wage claims)
– Others
• Other Legal Services

📌 Online consultations available via Zoom, Google Meet, or Viber (by appointment).
📧 For inquiries, please contact: [email protected] or message us here.

Spending the first Saturday of February 2026 doing one of the things I enjoy and love. Thank you for this opportunity, U...
07/02/2026

Spending the first Saturday of February 2026 doing one of the things I enjoy and love. Thank you for this opportunity, UV Gullas Law School. Glad to set foot on your campus for the second time. ⚖

Whatever tomorrow brings, congratulations on making it this far. ,
06/01/2026

Whatever tomorrow brings, congratulations on making it this far.

,

For online legal consultations, you may send us a message through this page or email us at attykmbatandolo@gmail.com. Co...
04/01/2026

For online legal consultations, you may send us a message through this page or email us at [email protected].

Consultations are by appointment and are accommodated during office hours, Monday to Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM, with limited evening and weekend availability upon request.

07/10/2025

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 borrower’s consent.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’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 party’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 PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

05/10/2025

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

Work in the first and second-level courts in Cebu City (Qimonda Building) will be SUSPENDED from October 6 to 10, 2025, following the recent 6.9 magnitude earthquake and pending structural and electrical safety inspections. During this period, courts will continue to address urgent matters such as bail applications, release orders, habeas corpus petitions, and marriage solemnization on an on-call basis. Judges may also use videoconferencing to handle urgent hearings.

See attached OCA Circular No. 291-2025 for complete details.
For assistance, please contact your respective court or branch hotline through the following link:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1D2DMJUB3M/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Issued by the Supreme Court – Office of the Court Administrator

October 4, 2025

25/08/2025

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jaime Fortunato A. Caringal, a member of the Remedial Law Department of the Philippine Judiciary Academy, discusses the right against double jeopardy in Episode 82: Right Against Double Jeopardy.

What is the right against double jeopardy? Are there any exceptions to this right? Under what circumstances cannot an accused invoke it?

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

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7GYSl0WV2USoCKmDD7XmVA?si=DFrbJAfnSMuMYTbuepY7uw

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

YouTube: https://youtu.be/rIkxxPrKFfI

06/08/2025

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

Attorneys’ Schedule of Minimum Fees (Taripa) applicable to cities and the entire province of Cebu
12/07/2025

Attorneys’ Schedule of Minimum Fees (Taripa) applicable to cities and the entire province of Cebu

Address

Cebu City
6000

Website

Alerts

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

Shortcuts

Share

Category