Batas PH Teleconsulta

21/09/2025

VICTIM-BLAMING WILL NOT BE CONDONED

READ: This was emphasized by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting as he penned the recent ruling of the Supreme Court Third Division, where it imposed a P101,000 fine against an RTC judge for uttering “inappropriate” remarks in open court about the domestic violence case that a fellow magistrate filed against her former partner, which perpetuate harmful stereotypes that portray women as inferior or weak.

Justice Inting emphasized that the court will never condone victim-blaming narratives and sexist language. He reminded judges to be stewards of the law by standing as a model of fostering inclusivity and eliminating discrimination both in and out of the courts.

21/09/2025

09/09/2025

05/09/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that the local government unit cannot automatically claim ownership of open spaces and road lots in subdivisions without written donation, as the property remains private.

In a 20-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC’s Second Division ruled that the Quezon City (QC) LGU failed to establish that the open spaces and road lots in Capital Park Homes Subdivision (CPHS) had been donated to the city for public use, citing its failure to show a copy of any deed of donation as well as any proof of acceptance of such donation.

The case stemmed from a petition filed by Rainier Madrid, a QC local resident and taxpayer, who questioned the use of public funds to improve what he argued was private property.

Madrid contended that VV Soliven, CPHS’ developer, failed to present proof that the properties had been donated to the QC LGU. He stressed that without proof of donation, the properties remain private and cannot be treated as public property.

The Quezon City LGU countered the petition by citing its 1964 ordinance, which provides that developers are required to dedicate 6% of open spaces to the city for public use before a subdivision plan can be approved. The city argued that CPHS’s plan approval in 1969 was proof of compliance, which made it a donation.

Meanwhile, the homeowners association admitted the absence of a deed of donation but cited a board resolution stating that the properties were donated to the QC LGU.

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition due to lack of cause of action, emphasizing that Madrid is not even a real party-in-interest.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower court ruling and recognized Madrid’s right to file the case since he could be affected by the alleged misuse of public funds.

The Appellate Court stressed that the areas in question remain private property, as there was no proof that the subdivision developer had donated them to the QC LGU. This prompted the city government to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the CA’s ruling, the high court emphasized that the QC LGU must prove a valid transfer of property in its favor.It held that since the LGU did not provide a deed of donation or any proof of acceptance, as required under the Civil Code, it failed to prove that the subject properties were donated.

The SC agreed with the CA ruling, saying the LGUs cannot rely solely on ordinances or laws to claim ownership. It cited the Civil Code, which requires a written deed of donation and an official act of acceptance for a valid property transfer.

Without the necessary documents, subdivision properties, even those designated as open spaces, remain private and cannot be subject to improvement, most especially using public funds.

02/09/2025

The (SC) has reiterated the rules in determining the appropriate legal actions for recovery of possession and/or ownership of land and the corresponding prescriptive periods in filing them. These remedies are: 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or ejectment, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖, and 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC 𝙀𝙣 𝘽𝙖𝙣𝙘 held that Lea Victa-Espinosa (Espinosa) correctly filed an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 to recover possession of her land within a year from dispossession. It explained that 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 may be filed not only when the dispossession lasted for a year but also when it lasted for a year or less when there is no allegation that the deprivation is by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

The SC also ruled that Espinosa’s action is not 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 as she did not seek in her complaint the recovery of ownership of the land.

After purchasing the property, Espinosa found that Spouses Noel and Leny Agullo were occupying a part of it. When they refused to leave despite her demand, Espinosa filed a complaint for recovery of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The RTC dismissed the complaint for being filed too early. It explained that Espinosa may still file forcible entry, an ejectment suit, within one year from the time she learned of the deprivation of physical possession of the land. Since an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 can only be filed after that one-year period, RTC ruled that her complaint was premature.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that Espinosa’s complaint was not an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 but an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖, as she sought to recover possession based on her ownership of the property.

In their Petition before the SC, Spouses Agullo sought to reinstate the ruling of the RTC dismissing the case and insisted that Espinosa’s case was an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 that was filed prematurely, as less than a year had passed since the alleged dispossession.

The Court denied the Petition but clarified that the action is not accion reivindicatoria but accion publiciana. It reiterated the actions available for recovery of possession and/or ownership of land:

• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or a summary ejectment case;
• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖; and
• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or summary ejectment proceeding is filed to recover physical possession of land when the dispossession was due to force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and has not lasted for more than a year.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 is filed when the dispossession lasted for more than a year, or even for a year or less, if it is not due to force, intimidation, or similar means.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 is filed to recover both ownership and possession based on that ownership.

The Court explained that in 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖, the issue is who has the better right to possess the land, without necessarily claiming ownership. In contrast, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 involves determining who owns the land, with possession granted to the rightful owner.

As what is sought in the complaint is recovery of possession and not ownership, and there is no allegation that Spouses Agullo disputed Espinosa’s title, the action is 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 and not 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

The Court also held that contrary to the findings of the RTC, the action was not premature, because 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 may be filed even within one year from dispossession if no force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth was used. Since Espinosa did not claim that Spouses Agullo used any of these means, the action was correctly filed not as ejectment suit but 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖.

The SC thus ordered the RTC to proceed to trial and decide the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/y7nr9hzx

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/38e2xzfa

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

13/07/2025

THE OMBUDSMAN IS NOT A JUDGE.

“It is plain error to equate the Ombudsman to a judge or a court when the former is discharging its duty to decide administrative cases. Unlike a judge or a court, the Ombudsman—by virtue of its special power, duty and function under the Constitution and the law—is on ‘a league of its own’ and thus cannot be ‘detached, disinterested or neutral’ with respect to the administrative decisions it renders.” - Office of the Ombudsman v. Chipoco, GR No. 231345, August 19, 2019

13/07/2025

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR BIGAMY STARTS FROM THE DATE OF DISCOVERY—SUPREME COURT

JUST IN: The Supreme Court (SC) has convicted a man of bigamy filed by his own older sisters after he contracted two subsequent marriages even though he is still legally married to his wife.

In a ruling, the SC's Third Division affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which convicted Erwin Bonbon of bigamy for entering into a bigamous marriage and sentenced him to suffer a penalty of 4-8 years in prison. Meanwhile, his mistress, Elizabeth, was also found guilty as an accomplice to the crime and was slapped with 6 months to 4 years imprisonment.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Erwin's older sisters, Cecile and Alice. Records showed that in 1988 Erwin married his wife, Gemma. While their marriage was subsisting, Erwin entered into his second marriage with Rizalina in 1994 and thereafter contracted another marriage with Elizabeth in 1999.

The court did not give credence to the contention of Erwin arguing that the case should be dismissed due to prescription since his marriage to Elizabeth was solemnized in 1999 or beyond the prescriptive period set by law for bigamy, which is only 15 years.

The SC held that the prescriptive period for bigamy should start not from the registration of the bigamous marriage but from the discovery of the same, emphasizing that the rule on constructive notice cannot be applied in the offense even though it is favorable to the accused.

It explained that since Erwin's subsequent marriages were only discovered by his sisters in 2020 and the case was filed in 2022, the same is well within the prescriptive period.

11/07/2025

The NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS preserves the status quo by warning all interested parties that the property is in litigation and that any subsequent dealings with it are subject to the court’s final decision. It does not create a lien or right, but it ensures that the property remains subject to the court’s jurisdiction and the outcome of the case.

07/07/2025

Another rainy day on the way to
the court. Here we come, Tuesday!

07/07/2025

Lawyers, kaya pa ba?

07/07/2025

THE BATTLE FOR FREEDOM IS NOT YET OVER

| The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has filed an appeal urging the Court of Appeals (CA) to bring in jail 81-year-old Prudencio Calubid Jr., who spent six months in detention after he was wrongfully accused of being a peace consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP).

In a motion for reconsideration filed by Solicitor General Darlene Marie Berberabe, government lawyers argued that the CA Sixteenth Division erred in allowing Calubid to be freed from Manila City Jail.

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Respondents respectfully pray of this Honorable Court to RECONSIDER, REVERSE, and/or SET ASIDE its Decision dated June 27, 2025, and a new one be entered, DENYING the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus and DISMISSING the instant Petition for lack of merit,” the OSG argued.

This comes after the Appellate Court granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Calubid’s daughter, Analyn Calubid, saying it is unlawful for her father to remain in detention, citing clear evidence that he is not the person named in an arrest warrant issued by the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In their motion, the OSG emphasized that the PNP CIDG conducted an “extensive investigation and intelligence gathering to ascertain the identity and whereabouts of Prudencio Calubid” using “open source investigation” that includes the use of social media and news articles.

It added that the profile photo in the Facebook account of Calubid “bore significant similarities” with Prudencio Calubid, who is included in the police’s most wanted list and has a P7.8-million bounty on his head.