Atty. Emar G. Basilan

13/08/2026

MAY HABOL BA SA SASAKYAN KAHIT NAKAPANGALAN SA EX-PARTNER?

"Attorney, tatlong taon naming hinuhulugan ng ex-live-in partner ko ang sasakyan. Sa kanya nakapangalan ang rehistro, pero pareho kaming naghuhulog. Ngayong hiwalay na kami, may habol pa ba ako?”

Posible, oo. Hindi sapat na sabihing sa ex-partner nakapangalan ang rehistro upang agad na masabing wala nang karapatan ang kabilang partner.

Kung ang sasakyan ay nakuha habang nagsasama kayo at may napatunayang kontribusyon ang parehong parties sa acquisition o payment nito, maaaring magkaroon ng co-ownership o proprietary interest, depende sa inyong circumstances at sa applicable provisions ng Family Code.

Kung Article 147 (Couples with Capacity to Marry) ang applicable, maaaring magkaroon ng presumption na ang property acquired during the period of cohabitation was acquired through joint efforts, subject to the requirements of the law.

Kung Article 148 (Couples with Legal Impediments) naman ang applicable, mas mahalaga ang actual contribution ng bawat isa—pera, property, o industry—sa acquisition ng property.

📌 Kaya mahalaga ang ebidensiya, gaya ng: • GCash/bank transfers
• Resibo ng monthly amortization
• Financing/loan documents
• Messages tungkol sa paghahati ng hulog
• Patunay ng downpayment o iba pang gastos
• Written agreement, kung mayroon

Mahalagang tandaan: Ang rehistro ay mahalagang dokumento, ngunit hindi ito laging nagtatapos sa usapin ng beneficial ownership sa pagitan ng mga parties.

Kung may ganitong sitwasyon, huwag agad pumirma ng waiver o quitclaim at huwag basta isuko ang anumang claim nang hindi muna nasusuri ang mga dokumento at ebidensiya.

⚖️ Legal advice depends on the specific facts of each case. Ang tamang remedy at law applicable ay maaaring mag-iba depende sa inyong status, nature ng cohabitation, financing arrangement, at aktuwal na kontribusyon ng bawat isa.

12/08/2026

VOID MARRIAGE AS DEFENSE IN BIGAMY

Supreme Court: In Pulido vs People (GR No. 220149, July 27, 2021), the Court hold that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior marriage and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case.

In Pulido, there was no sufficient record establishing that a valid marriage license had actually been issued for the first marriage. The marriage was subsequently judicially declared void ab initio. The Supreme Court therefore ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the required prior valid marriage and acquitted Pulido of bigamy.

However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot interpose an annulment case as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy since the voidable first marriage is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was contracted.

🔎 Important distinction:

✅ Void ab initio marriage — may be raised as a defense in a bigamy case, even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity.

❌ Voidable marriage — remains valid and subsisting until annulled; therefore, it generally cannot be used as a defense to negate bigamy committed while the marriage was still valid.

04/08/2026

⚖️ DOUBLE SALE OF PROPERTY: WHO REALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY?

Buying a property is one of the biggest investments a person can make. Whether it is for your family's home, business, or future inheritance, you expect peace of mind—not years of litigation.

📖 What is a Double Sale?

A double sale occurs when the same seller sells the same property to two or more different buyers, each claiming ownership over it.

Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, the law determines who has the better right.

🏡 For real property (land, house and lot, condominium):

The law gives priority to:

✅ 1. The buyer who FIRST REGISTERS the sale with the Registry of Deeds, PROVIDED the registration was made in GOOD FAITH.

If no one has registered:

✅ 2. The buyer who FIRST TAKES POSSESSION of the property in GOOD FAITH.

If neither registration nor possession exists:

✅ 3. The buyer who holds the OLDEST TITLE, PROVIDED it was acquired in GOOD FAITH.

⚠️ Good Faith is Essential
Registration alone does not guarantee ownership.

A buyer who knew—or should have known—that the property had already been sold to another cannot rely on registration to defeat the prior buyer's rights. As the Supreme Court held in Rosaroso v. Soria (G.R. No. 194846, June 19, 2013), registration made in bad faith is treated as no registration at all.

📌 Article 1544 applies only if ALL of the following are present:

•There are two or more valid sales involving the same property;

• The buyers have conflicting claims over ownership;

• The sales were made by the same seller; and
• Both transactions are valid sales.

Atty. Emar G. Basilan is a Lawyer and a Geologist by profession.

Disclaimer: The posts in this page are just general information, not legal advice nor as a solicitation for legal services. Please don't rely on it for legal decisions.

03/08/2026

SC: ONLY RIVER ACCRETIONS BELONG TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS; SEASHORE ACCRETIONS REMAIN STATE PROPERTY

The Supreme Court has clarified that land gradually formed by the current of a river may become the property of the adjoining landowner, but land formed along the seashore remains owned by the State. The distinction lies in Article 457 of the Civil Code, which grants ownership only over alluvial deposits received along the banks of rivers. The law does not extend the same privilege to deposits formed along the seashore, which continue to form part of the public domain.

SC: ONLY RIVER ACCRETIONS BELONG TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS; SEASHORE ACCRETIONS REMAIN STATE PROPERTY

The Supreme Court has clarified that land gradually formed by the current of a river may become the property of the adjoining landowner, but land formed along the seashore remains owned by the State. The distinction lies in Article 457 of the Civil Code, which grants ownership only over alluvial deposits received along the banks of rivers. The law does not extend the same privilege to deposits formed along the seashore, which continue to form part of the public domain.

READ: [https://dlsurf.com/.1006/sc-only-river-accretions-belong-to-private-landowners-seashore-accretions-remain-state-property]

01/08/2026

ANO ANG GERRYMANDERING?

Ang gerrymandering ay ang sinasadyang pagguhit o pagbabago ng hangganan ng mga distritong panghalalan upang bigyan ng hindi patas na kalamangan ang isang kandidato, partidong politikal, o grupo.

Nagmula ang salitang "gerrymandering" noong 1812 sa Estados Unidos. Pinagsama nito ang apelyido ni Governor Elbridge Gerry ng Massachusetts at ang salitang "salamander," dahil ang hugis ng isang bagong distritong nilikha sa ilalim ng kanyang administrasyon ay inihalintulad sa isang salamander.

Sa Pilipinas, pinangangalagaan ng 1987 Konstitusyon ang patas na representasyon sa pamamagitan ng pag-aatas na ang mga legislative district ay dapat, hangga't maaari, ay magkakadugtong (contiguous), compact, at magkakatabi (adjacent).

Ang hangganan ng distrito ay dapat iguhit para sa mamamayan—hindi para sa kapakinabangan ng mga politiko.

31/07/2026

LEGAL MAXIM OF THE DAY

“Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus.”

Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish.

This principle of statutory construction teaches that when the law is clear and makes no distinction among persons, situations, or circumstances, courts and interpreters should not create distinctions that the law itself does not provide.

The Supreme Court in numerous cases explained that general words and phrases in a statute should ordinarily be given their natural and general significance and should not be divided or qualified in a manner that excludes something from the operation of the law when the statute itself provides no such distinction.

Example in the case of Grave Threat under Art. 282 of the Revised Penal Code:

Article 282. Grave Threats. — Any person WHO SHALL THREATEN another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his [or her] family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he [or she] threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his [or her] purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his [or her] purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

In Gregory Israel v. People, G.R. No. 265736, November 19, 2025, the Supreme Court held that Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code does not distinguish between threats made through verbal statements and those conveyed through non-verbal gestures. Thus, neither should the Court.

Simply put: We should not read into the law an exception, qualification, or distinction that the legislature did not put there.

25/07/2026

Article 457 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

"To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters."
— Article 457, Civil Code of the Philippines

What does this mean?

When a river naturally and gradually deposits soil along the bank of your property through the continuous action of its current, that newly formed land—known as alluvion or accretion—generally becomes part of your property.

The deposit of soil, to be considered accretion, must be:

(a) gradual and imperceptible;
(b) made through the effects of the current of the water; and
(c) taking place on land adjacent to the banks of rivers.

However, the accretion does not become automatically registered land just because the lot which receives it is covered by a Torrens title. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and registration under the Torrens system of that ownership is quite another (Ignacio Grande vs Court of Appeals, GR No. L- 17652, June 30, 1962).

⚖️ This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

18/07/2026

Is a Land Title (OCT/TCT) Enough to Guarantee a Safe Purchase?

A common misconception among property buyers is that the presentation of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) or an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) automatically guarantees a valid and secure transaction. While the Torrens system generally protects purchasers who rely on a clean certificate of title, such protection is not without exceptions.

As a general rule, a buyer of registered land may rely on what appears on the face of the certificate of title. However, there are situations where the law requires the buyer to exercise greater diligence.

For example, a prudent buyer should investigate further if:
✔️ Another person is in actual possession of the property;
✔️ There are inconsistencies in the documents;
✔️ There are indications of defects or irregularities in the seller's title; or
✔️ Other circumstances exist that would cause a reasonable person to question the validity of the transaction.

When facts or circumstances raise suspicion, a buyer cannot simply rely on the title alone. The law expects a prudent purchaser to make reasonable inquiries. Failure to do so may result in the loss of the protection afforded to a buyer in good faith or an innocent purchaser for value.

As the Supreme Court has consistently held, the protection accorded to an innocent purchaser for value is not absolute. A buyer who is aware of circumstances that should arouse suspicion has the duty to investigate beyond the face of the title.

Remember: A title is an important starting point—but it should never be the end of your due diligence. Conducting proper due diligence today can help you avoid costly legal disputes tomorrow.

Disclaimer: This post is intended for general legal information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Every legal issue depends on its specific facts and the applicable law.

Atty. Emar G. Basilan is a Lawyer and a Geologist by profession.

Disclaimer: The posts in this page are just general information, not legal advice nor as a solicitation for legal services. Please don't rely on it for legal decisions.

26/05/2026

For educational purposes only:

Q.
X, a woman who is 38 years of age, fell in love with Y, a teenage man who just turned 19 years old. Despite X being twice as old as Y, their relationship clicked. X believes that Y is her knight in shining armor while for Y, X is the apple of his eyes. After 3 months of being together, X and Y decided to get married but without the knowledge and consent of both of their parents. Is the marriage of X and Y valid, voidable or void?