SD Law Offices & Notaries Public

09/04/2026

Today, we honor the valor of those who stood for our nation. 🇵🇭
Their bravery lives on in the heart of every Filipino.
Please be informed that our office remains open to serve you today.
— SD Law Offices & Notaries Public

07/04/2026

Currently here at SD Law ⚖️
Unit 1, 2nd Floor, MGR Building, Matina Aplaya Crossing

Please dont hesitate to visit us for your legal needs.

SD Law Offices & Notaries Public

05/12/2025

PUBLIC REMINDER 📣

A Senior Citizen ID is NOT required to avail of the senior citizen discount.

👉 ANY valid government-issued ID that clearly shows the bearer is 60 years old or above is enough under the law.

Examples include:
✔️ Driver’s License
✔️ Passport
✔️ PhilHealth ID
✔️ UMID
✔️ Postal ID
✔️ National ID, etc.

Businesses and establishments must honor the discount as long as the age requirement is proven.

⚠️ Refusal to honor this may lead to legal consequences under the Expanded Senior Citizens Act (RA 9994).

Let’s respect and uphold the rights of our senior citizens. 💙🇵🇭

21/10/2025

Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said the Office of the Solicitor General no longer automatically appeals annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage cases granted by regional trial courts, and conducts an assessment first to determine whether a ruling should be challenged.

10/09/2025

The (SC) has clarified that disputes involving condominium contracts should be decided by the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), formerly the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), and not the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division nullified the RTC’s ruling that held Vivien M. Cadungog (Cadungog) and Sung Ha Jung (Sung) civilly liable to each other over a contract to sell involving a condominium unit.

Under the contract, Cadungog, a developer of a condominium building in Cebu City, agreed to deliver a unit to Sung once he completed payment of PHP 3.5 million. Sung paid a PHP 175,000 downpayment, and later PHP 3 million, leaving a balance of PHP 258,950. Because of the unpaid amount, Cadungog refused to deliver the unit.

Sung then filed a criminal complaint before the RTC against Cadungog, citing a violation of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957 or the 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦.

The RTC acquitted Cadungog, but ordered her to either: deliver the unit upon full payment of the purchase price, or return the amount Sung had already paid. Cadungog argued that it was the HLURB and not the RTC which had jurisdiction over the civil aspect of her case.

Ruling in Cadungog’s favor, the SC declared as null and void the RTC’s decision on the civil matter of the case.

It explained that while civil liability can be decided in a criminal case, this does not apply when the liability arises from a contract, as in this case.

The SC emphasized that the civil dispute between Cadungog and Sung stemmed from their contract to sell.

Further, under PD 957, as amended, the HLURB (now reconstituted as the HSAC) has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving contractual and legal obligations between buyers and developers of real estate projects. At the time Sung filed the complaint, it was the HLURB that had authority over such cases.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151440.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151432.

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

01/09/2025

Revised Schedule of Minimum Attorney's Fees in Davao City

30/08/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) automatically ceases upon the death of the person who granted it, and any acts carried out by the agent afterwards are void, unless covered by narrow exceptions under the law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division held that Jessica Alova Uberas lost her authority under the SPA to act on behalf of her father, Meliton Alova, upon his death in 1998.

In 1998, Meliton executed an SPA in favor of Jessica over the subject conjugal property. He died later that year. Despite the death of his father, Jessica still used the same SPA in 2003 to execute a mortgage over the said property in favor of San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) to secure her loan from the company. Jessica failed to pay the loan and the property was foreclosed where SMFI emerged as the winning bidder.

Felicidad Alova and Decelyn Alova Pution, the widow and other daughter of Meliton, filed a case to nullify the mortgage and the foreclosure sale.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) determined that Meliton’s death ended the agency. However, the RTC found that because the SPA had the conformity of Felicidad, Meliton’s wife, the mortgage was valid on her ½ share of the conjugal property. On the other hand, the CA declared the mortgage invalid, citing that it was not executed on behalf of Spouses Meliton and Felicidad.

SMFI appealed to the SC, which partly ruled in its favor. The Court upheld the agency’s termination but validated the mortgage and foreclosure sale with respect to Jessica’s undivided share in the property.

The SC explained that under an SPA, which is a contract of agency, a principal authorizes an agent to act on his or her behalf in transactions with third persons. Agency is personal, representative, and derivative, and it ends upon the death of either the principal or the agent.

Any act by the agent after the principal’s death is void, unless it falls under two Civil Code exceptions: (1) when the agency was for the parties’ common interest, and (2) when the agent, unaware of the death or agency’s end, contracted with a third party in good faith.

In this case, there was no showing that these exceptions were applicable. Jessica was fully aware of her father’s death, and the SPA was not made for their mutual benefit.

The SC also reiterated that for an agent’s act to bind the principal, the deed must clearly be made, signed, and sealed in the principal’s name.

Here, although Jessica was described in the beginning of the deed as Meliton’s attorney-in-fact, the mortgage was signed by Jessica in her personal capacity, as it was neither executed nor sealed in Meliton’s name, and without indication that she was acting as attorney-in-fact.

The Court also ruled that Meliton’s wife, Felicidad, was not bound as a principal under the SPA, as she only provided her marital conformity.

However, the Court clarified that the mortgage and foreclosure sale were not entirely void. Jessica automatically became a co-owner of the property after her father’s death. When she signed the mortgage, she encumbered her share in the property to secure her obligation to SMFI. Therefore, the mortgage and foreclosure sale were valid only for Jessica’s share.

The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine Jessica’s share in the subject property and to annotate the shares of Meliton’s other heirs, and that of SMFI which acquired Jessica’s interest.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260071-san-miguel-foods-inc-vs-felicidad-d-alova-and-decelyn-alova-pution/

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

30/08/2025

𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗭𝗘𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗛, 𝗕𝗥𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗔𝗡!

The Bar is not merely an examination, it is the crucible where courage is tested, where sacrifice is sanctified, and where the destiny of the noble is written. It is not for the faint of heart, but for the steadfast who dare to rise.

You have already endured what many could not: nights when sleep was exiled, days when comfort was abandoned, and moments when doubt grew louder than hope. Yet you stood firm. You fought. You conquered. Every page read, every principle mastered, every doctrine recalled is not just knowledge, but proof of your resilience.

Now you stand at the threshold of history. Ahead lies not only the Bar, but the promise of honor. Let the Betan Pledge be your armor, and let the law be your sword, to strive for the zenith of this land of the morning.

Brave Betan and Sigman, march forth! The scales of justice await your touch. Go with the valor of those who dare, for fortune favors the brave.

Stand unafraid, for the eternal cry of justice echoes in your cause: let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Stand unwavering, for the highest law has always been this: Salus populi suprema lex esto (The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law).

And when the storm of the Bar is over, you shall emerge - battle-tested, weary yet unbroken, scarred yet triumphant. In that moment, you will know: victory was already yours the instant you chose courage, discipline, and honor to ΒΣΛ𝒕 the BAR.

The Glorious House of 𝕭𝖊𝖙𝖆 𝕾𝖎𝖌𝖒𝖆 𝕷𝖆𝖒𝖇𝖉𝖆 stands resolute behind you - proud, unshakable, and ready to witness your names etched forever in the Roll of Attorneys.

Rise now, Brave Betans - with the strength of sacrifice, the fire of conviction, and the brilliance of your destiny.

Stand tall and claim the glory of your triumphant hour!
✍🏻cai






——-
Good luck to all future lawyers from Beta Sigma Lambda- Mindanao State University College of Law Iligan Chapter!!⚖️

15/07/2025

02/07/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yeapyzcd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

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

27/06/2025

THE COURT CANNOT FORCE A SPOUSE TO STAY IN A LOVELESS MARRIAGE—SUPREME COURT

In a 16-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC's Second Division granted the petition of Ronald Boado to annul his marriage to his wife, Florence Galvez-Boado, on the ground of his psychological incapacity.

Their love story started when they met in 1999. Roughly three years later, or in 2002, they decided to settle down and marry each other. Florence and Ronald decided not to live together immediately, as Ronald worked in Saudi Arabia.

During Ronald's brief vacation in 2004, they held a church wedding, after which the husband returned abroad. A year later, he came back to the Philippines, which served as their opportunity to live together. Ronald and Florence were blessed with two children: a son in 2007 and a daughter in 2012. As the years passed by, their relationship began to turn sour due to frequent misunderstandings and periods of separation.

In 2016, Ronald filed a petition for nullification of marriage on the ground of his psychological incapacity. He attached a psychologist's diagnosis, which showed that he had passive-aggressive personality disorder—an illness marked by emotional detachment and difficulty maintaining close relationships.

Initially the Regional Trial Court granted the petition, saying the petitioner had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity in a legal sense, but the said ruling was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. This prompted Ronald to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reinstating the RTC's ruling and deciding in favor of Ronald, the high court said his psychological incapacity had been sufficiently proven. It cited Article 36 of the Family Code, which states that a marriage may be declared void if one or both spouses are psychologically incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations—even if such incapacity manifested only after the wedding.

The SC found that Ronald's incapacity was deeply rooted in his personal character and had existed before the marriage. It emphasized that psychological incapacity may not be immediately visible and may surface only later in the relationship.

It added that Ronald's inability to emotionally connect stemmed from an upbringing marked by strictness and emotional immaturity from his parents. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

“Loving one’s spouse is an important, if not the most important, essential marital obligation,” the Supreme Court said.

The SC ruled to grant Ronald's petition because of his inability as a husband to love his wife, which was caused by his psychological condition, adding that the court cannot force him to stay in a loveless marriage.

24/06/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a co-owner must give written notice to the other co-owners before selling their share of a property. However, if the other co-owners already knew about the sale and failed to exercise their right to buy the share within 30 days, the written notice is no longer required.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by siblings Antonio Azurin, Jr. (Antonio) and Rafael Azurin (Rafael) to buy back a parcel of land registered in the name of Carlito Chua (Chua).

Antonio and Rafael were in possession of a parcel of land which they co-owned with their aunt Adelaida. Adelaida later sold to Chua her portion, which was officially registered in Chua’s name after it was surveyed and divided.

Years later, Antonio and Rafael attempted to buy back the land from Chua by filing a complaint for legal redemption before the trial court. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the complaint, on the ground that the case was filed years after the sale and well beyond the 30-day period allowed by the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Antonio and Rafael appealed to the SC, but the SC denied their appeal.

The SC said that under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a co-owner intending to sell their share to a third party must notify the other co-owners in writing about the sale. The other co-owners then have 30 days from receipt of the written notice to redeem or buy back the portion sold. If they fail to do so within the period, they lose the right to redeem the sold portion.

The SC, however, added that the requirement of written notice can be waived if (1) unusual circumstances have made the co-owners aware of the sale, and (2) the co-owners did not take action or were negligent in their right to redeem the property, a situation referred to in law as laches.

In this case, the SC found that Antonio and Rafael were aware of the sale. They were in actual possession of the land and, therefore, were informed about the survey conducted on it. Additionally, they received Chua’s legal complaint to recover possession.

However, they waited more than six years before trying to redeem the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/68yxczhw.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/35tpwuye.

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