Fama & Palomar Law Office

Fama & Palomar Law Office Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Fama & Palomar Law Office, Legal Service, 2nd Floor, NFC Building, Aquino Nobleza West, Janiuay.

08/05/2026

The has acquitted a man charged with violence against women and their children, or VAWC, for allegedly refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his, emphasizing that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SCโ€™s Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262, or the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ˆ๐˜จ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 2004 (๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜๐˜ˆ๐˜ž๐˜Š ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต).

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of refusing to provide financial support for her child.

The accused consistently denied he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after they last had sexual relations.

During trial, the woman presented the childโ€™s birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the fatherโ€™s name, was marked "๐˜•/๐˜ˆ" and left unsigned.

The woman also admitted in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the childโ€™s father.

In reversing the accusedโ€™s conviction, the SC explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜๐˜ˆ๐˜ž๐˜Š ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต, the prosecution must show the following: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offenderโ€™s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender refused to give financial support due; and (4) the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

In this case, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.

As the accusedโ€™s paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164663.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164655.

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

08/05/2026
14/02/2026

The Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) Board has issued ULAS Advisory No. 1, S. 2026, which informs all lawyers of the scheduled launch of the ULAS Portal โ€“ Phase 1 on March 3, 2026.

The ULAS Portal refers to the centralized online platform that will be used for purposes of reporting and monitoring compliance with the ULAS Rules and the Manual. Upon the launch of Phase 1, registered organizations may already submit their manifestations of intent to aggregate, and applicants may apply for pre-accreditation or post-accreditation of legal outreach programs and legal missions through the Portal.

All lawyers are advised that access to the ULAS Portal requires an active PJP account.

Read the full text of ULAS Advisory No. 1, S. 2026 athttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ULAS-Advisory-No.-1-s.-2026.pdf

12/02/2026

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SCโ€™s Second Division granted a womanโ€™s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partnerโ€™s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜จ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜จ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฐ๐˜ธ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜จ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

18/11/2025

Fellow members, please be informed that the Iloilo City Hall of Justice is now operating from a temporary address at Newcastle Hotel, Bonifacio Drive, Iloilo City until further notice. All court-related transactions and inquiries should be directed to the designated temporary office.

Edit: The designated room assignments for courts have additional changes. Please contact the RTC OCC or wait for announcements for further updates.

17/10/2025

The Serbisyo Legal sa Kabanwahanan extends its community outreach to Janiuay, Iloilo on October 25, 2025, featuring both legal aid services and sports activities such as basketball and volleyball games to foster camaraderie and wellness among participants. Join us and see you there!

Address

2nd Floor, NFC Building, Aquino Nobleza West
Janiuay
5034

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm
Saturday 8am - 5pm

Telephone

+639123775534

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Fama & Palomar Law Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Fama & Palomar Law Office:

Share

Category