Mansion Law Office

08/10/2026

Inaprubahan ng 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 ng , sa sesyon nito noong Oktubre 7, 2026, ang mga pagbabago sa 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 (A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC) tungkol sa petisyon para kilalanin ang diborsyong nadeklara sa ibang bansa, kung saan hindi na kakailanganing patunayan ng asawang Pilipino ang banyagang batas at tanging ang mismong diborsyo na lang ang kailangan patunayan.

Sa ilalim ng mga pagbabago, na magkakabisa 15 araw matapos itong mailathala sa 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚 ng Korte Suprema, hindi na kailangang patunayan ng mga Pilipinong asawa na naghahain ng petisyon para kilalanin ang isang diborsyong isinagawa sa ibang bansa, alinsunod sa Artikulo 26(2) ng 𝙁𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙮 𝘾𝙤𝙙𝙚, kung ano ang naaangkop na batas ng nasabing bansa. Ang kailangan na lamang nilang patunayan ay na talagang naganap ang diborsyo sa ibang bansa.

Ipinakikilala ng mga pagbabago ang Seksyon 48-A ng Rule 39, na nagtatakda ng pagpapalagay na ang diborsyong isinagawa sa ibang bansa sa pagitan ng isang Pilipino at dayuhang asawa ay nagbibigay-daan sa dayuhang asawa na muling magpakasal alinsunod sa batas ng kanyang bansa, maliban kung malinaw na nakasaad mismo sa 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙚 ng diborsyo na ito ay isang limitadong uri lamang ng diborsyo.

Sa ilalim ng bagong tuntunin, ang panig na tumututol sa petisyon ang siyang kailangang magpatunay na hindi ganap ang diborsyo.

Ipinapalagay rin sa bagong tuntunin na tama at tumpak ang salin sa Ingles ng isang dokumento ng diborsiyo mula sa ibang bansa, basta’t pinanunumpaan ng tagapagsalin na ito ay wasto at tumpak.

Maaaring pabulaanan ang mga pagpapalagay na ito sa pamamagitan ng salungat na ebidensiya, alinsunod sa Seksyon 3 ng Rule 131.

Gayunman, hindi pinapalitan ng mga pagbabagong ito ang umiiral na legal na balangkas. Kinakailangan pa rin ang paghahain ng petisyon para sa 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 ng isang diborsiyong ipinagkaloob sa ibang bansa, at nananatiling pareho ang mga kahingiang itinatadhana sa Artikulo 26(2) ng 𝙁𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙮 𝘾𝙤𝙙𝙚.

Maaari pa ring tutulan ang pagkilala sa diborsiyong ipinagkaloob sa ibang bansa batay sa mga kadahilanan gaya ng kawalan ng hurisdiksiyon, kakulangan ng pabatid, panlilinlang, o malinaw na pagkakamali sa batas o sa mga pangyayari.

Inaprubahan ang mga pagbabagong ito batay sa rekomendasyon ni Kasangguning Mahistrado Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, at matapos makipag-ugnayan kina Kasangguning Mahistrado Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at Jhosep Y. Lopez, gayundin sa Sub-Technical Working Group on the Concerns of Overseas Working Filipinos Regarding the Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decrees/Reports (Sub-TWG).

Sa pamamagitan ng mga pagbabagong ito, layunin ng Korte Suprema na alisin ang mga hindi nararapat na balakid at gawing mas madali para sa mga Pilipino ang pagtamasa ng kanilang mga karapatang itinatadhana ng batas.

Basahin ang kabuuang 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝘽𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧 sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174621.

Ang buong teksto ng 𝙀𝙣 𝘽𝙖𝙣𝙘 𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 ng Korte Suprema, A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC, ay ipapaskil sa 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚 ng Korte Suprema sa sandaling ito ay maging available.

Sumunod sa 𝘾𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙩 𝘼𝙩𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙋𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙮 ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

26/09/2026

Titles successfully turned over to our clients!

Agyaman kami ti pinagtalek yo. 💕

23/09/2026

Dua pay a titulo ti nakasagana nga iturn-over kadagiti kliyente tayo inton Biernes!

Kas commitment mi iti nalawag ken transparent a serbisyo, amin nga official receipts para kadagiti bayad iti government offices ken agencies ket maiturn-over a nasayaat kadagiti kliyente tayo.

Mangited kami met iti official receipt para iti professional fees mi, tapno masigurado a tunggal bayad ket nasayaat a madokumento ken ma-account.

Agyaman kami iti patuloy yo a panagtalek kadakami. 🤍

19/09/2026

𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐃𝐀𝐘 | 𝐒𝐄𝐏𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐄𝐑 𝟏𝟗

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines joins the nation in the observance of Law Day, celebrated every September 19 pursuant to Proclamation No. 1477, s. 1975. The proclamation recognizes the indispensable role of the administration of justice in a democracy and the important contribution of lawyers in strengthening the rule of law.

Today, we honor the members of the legal profession whose work advances justice, protects rights, and upholds the principles upon which our democratic institutions stand.

May this occasion remind us that the practice of law is not only a profession, but also a continuing responsibility to serve the public, defend the rule of law, and help make justice accessible to all.

Happy Law Day!

Serve the Country. Hail the IBP!

18/09/2026

05/09/2026

The (SC) has clarified the rules on serving notices of dishonor in cases involving Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘉𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘓𝘢𝘸. The SC formally recognized electronic service as a valid mode of serving notice of dishonor, while requiring safeguards to ensure that service can be reliably proven in court.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 affirmed the conviction of spouses Arnel and Marivic Carlos for six counts of violating BP 22.

The spouses issued six checks to respondent Tire Star, Inc. as payment for car tires. All six checks were dishonored by the bank as the account they were drawn from had been closed.

The prosecution presented evidence that Tire Star’s messenger personally attempted to serve the notice of dishonor at the spouses’ office, and that the spouses refused to receive it, instructed an employee instead to sign for it.

The spouses then claimed before the SC that they should be acquitted because they were not properly served with a notice of dishonor.

The SC rejected the spouses’ argument, emphasizing that an accused cannot defeat a BP 22 prosecution simply by denying receipt of the notice or refusing to accept it. Otherwise, issuers could easily evade liability by avoiding service.

To promote uniformity and reduce disputes, the SC clarified the acceptable modes of serving notices of dishonor.

𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 remains the preferred mode. The notice may be delivered directly to the issuer or, in the case of a business, to an authorized representative. If the issuer cannot be served at the office, the notice may be left at the issuer’s residence with an adult resident between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.

The person serving the notice must execute an affidavit stating when, where, and how service was made. When practicable, service should be documented through photographs or video recordings, subject to proper authentication in court.

If personal service is not practicable, the notice of dishonor may be sent by 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹, or where registry service is unavailable, by 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹. The person serving the notice must likewise execute an affidavit explaining why personal service could not be made and attach the supporting postal documents.

The SC also recognized 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲, ruling that a notice of dishonor may now be served through email as a primary mode of service when the issuer previously provided their email address. Electronic service may likewise be used through platforms such as 𝘝𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳, 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳, or similar applications, provided it can be verified that the electronic account belongs to the issuer.

Electronic service may also be used when the issuer refuses to receive the notice, avoids service, or when personal service is otherwise impracticable. In such cases, the electronic notice must be sent within 24 hours after the final unsuccessful attempt at personal service and must state the dates and details of those failed attempts.

The sender must also execute an affidavit and preserve supporting evidence, such as screenshots, messages, delivery or read receipts, or chat histories., stressing that a simple denial of receipt is not enough to invalidate electronic service.

In all instances, to successfully dispute service, the issuer must show that it was physically impossible to have received the notice at the time and place it was served.

The spouses were fined a total of PHP 609,972.58 for the six BP 22 violations, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment. They were also ordered to pay Tire Star the same amount, plus interest.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that electronic service should not merely be a substitute but a primary mode of service consistent with contemporary means of communication and the Judiciary’s ongoing digital reforms.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172159.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171528.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171527.

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

04/07/2026

Thank you for your trust, Ma’am. We look forward to assisting you again.

02/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168319.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

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