Bathan-Lasco Baterina Abayon Law

19/10/2026

On October 7, 2026, the Supreme Court en banc has approved the amendments to the Rules of Court concerning foreign divorces.

Read the full text of the amendments below.

07/10/2026

Can an insurer cancel a life insurance policy for non-disclosure of a medical condition?

The answer is yes.

In Intestate Heirs of the Late Indalicio Monera v. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation and Meycauayan Rural Bank, Inc. (G.R. No. 246446, January 28, 2026), the Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of a man’s life insurance policy after he failed to disclose his medical history, including a prior cancer diagnosis.

“Section 27 of the Insurance Code provides that ‘a concealment, whether intentional or unintentional, entitles the injured party to rescind a contract of insurance.’ Section 26 also defines concealment as ‘a neglect to communicate that which a party knows and ought to communicate’,” the Court stated.

It also ruled that an insurer need not prove there was intent to deceive on the part of the insured. Under the Insurance Code, concealment of a material fact may justify cancellation when the undisclosed information could have affected the insurer’s decision to issue the policy or its terms.

“Ineluctably, Section 27 negates any distinction between intentional and unintentional concealments. Thus, no proof of fraudulent intent is necessary in cases of rescission due to concealment,” the Court said.

The High Court also held that the two-year incontestability rule under the Insurance Code did not apply to the case because the policies involved were short-term, lasting only two and three months.

Full text of the case here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/EN-BANC-G.R.NO_.246446DECISION-1-13.pdf

05/10/2026

Can an employee’s attitude problem be a valid ground for termination?

The answer is yes.

In Heavylift Manila, Inc. and/or Josephne Evangelio et al v. The Court of Appeals et al (G.R. No. 154410, October 20, 2005), the Supreme Court held:

"An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees is detrimental to the company for he can upset and strain the working environment. Without the necessary teamwork and synergy, the organization cannot function well. Thus, management has the prerogative to take the necessary action to correct the situation and protect its organization. When personal differences between employees and management affect the work environment, the peace of the company is affected. Thus, an employee's attitude problem is a valid ground for his termination. It is a situation analogous to loss of trust and confidence that must be duly proved by the employer. Similarly, compliance with the twin requirement of notice and hearing must also be proven by the employer."

02/10/2026

A couple’s marriage was voided after it was found that they falsely claimed to have lived together for at least five years to qualify for the marriage license exemption under Article 34 of the Family Code.

The couple had been together since 2003, but the husband left for Israel for work from 2006 to 2009. Before their marriage, they executed an Affidavit of Cohabitation stating that they had lived together for six years.

The Supreme Court held that the five-year cohabitation requirement must be continuous and exclusive, counted backward from the date of marriage. While temporary absence does not necessarily interrupt cohabitation, there must still be evidence that the couple continued living as husband and wife during the period.

“To be sure, Article 34 of the Family Code is an exception to the general rule that a valid marriage license is required as a formal requisite of marriage. As such, the exception must be strictly construed. That is, the marriage license requirement may be dispensed with only in circumstances that clearly fall within the ambit of Article 34. A false affidavit of cohabitation would thus render the marriage void ###,” the Supreme Court said.

In the case, it was found that there was insufficient evidence of continuous cohabitation. The affidavit was false and it could therefore not substitute for the required marriage license.

Full text here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/262653.pdf

30/09/2026

A document titled "Waiver of Rights" may actually be a donation.

In Felix Cruz v. Robin Cruz et al (G.R. Nos. 269039-41, February 19, 2026), the Supreme Court ruled that where the heirs waive their rights over real property in favor of specific persons, the transaction may be considered a donation if the essential elements of a valid donation are present.

The High Court said: "Under the Civil Code, in order for a donation of an immovable property to be valid, the following elements must be present: (a) the essential reduction of the patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee; (c) the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi; (d) the donation must be contained in a public document; and (e) that the acceptance thereof be made in the same deed or in a separate public instrument; if acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor must be notified thereof in an authentic form, to be noted in both instruments."

In the case, though the documents executed by the heirs were denominated as "Waivers of Rights", the Court held that these amounted to donations inter vivos as the legal requirements were met.

The properties were therefore validly donated and no longer formed part of the decedent’s estate at the time of her death.

Full text here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/GR-NOS-2690390-41.pdf

28/09/2026

A corporation is a separate legal person, but that protection is not absolute.

As a general rule, a corporation’s liabilities belong to the corporation itself and cannot automatically be charged against its stockholders, officers, or related corporations.

However, courts may pierce the corporate veil in certain instances. In Toledo Construction Corp. Employees' Association-ADLO-KMU v. Toledo Construction Corp., et al (G.R. No. 204868, December 7, 2022, 932 Phil. 239), the Supreme Court identified three instances which justify the piercing of the corporate veil, to wit:

(1) When the corporation's separate personality is being used to defeat public convenience, such as in evading existing obligations;

(2) In fraud cases, when it is used to justify a wrong, protect fraud, or defend a crime; and

(3) In alter-ego cases, where the corporation's separate personality is not bona fide, such that it is only a conduit of another person, or its business is controlled or maintained as a mere agency or adjunct of another, that it has no mind or will of its own.

In all these cases, malice and bad faith must be shown.

22/09/2026

Can a verbal sale of land be legally binding?

Yes. In Ocampo v. Batara-Sapad, G.R. No. 256343, April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court held that an unwritten sale of land may remain valid and binding when the sale has been partially or fully executed.

Read the full text of the case here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/256343.pdf

21/09/2026

Artificial intelligence is changing how we create media, but where does the law draw the line?

Read Atty. Jon Amio’s Panay News article on data privacy and AI-generated content here: www.panaynews.net/when-ai-generated-media-become-a-privacy-violation

IT’S A RANDOM Tuesday night. You scroll through social media and see some AI-generated photos posted by your friends as part of one of those quintessential 2026 online trends. It’s cute, until it’s not. The National Privacy Commission (NPC), the body statutorily mandated to administer and impl...

18/09/2026

The Supreme Court has reiterated that marital infidelity, by itself, is not punishable under Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act of 2004.

Rather, it is the psychological violence resulting from such infidelity, when it causes mental or emotional anguish or suffering to the wife, that may constitute an offense under the law, as clarified in ### v. People, G.R. No. 268619, January 13, 2026.

Full text:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/GR-NO-268619.pdf

14/09/2026

Congratulations to Atty. Jon Amio on making Junior Partner of BLBA Law Firm effective September 1, 2026.