DABO Law Firm

23/08/2026

🏠 PAID BUT PROMISES BROKEN? YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A REFUND.

The Supreme Court reminds property buyers: when a developer fails to honor its commitments, you may have the right to rescind the transaction and recover what you paid.

💡 Lesson for buyers: Keep your receipts, documents, messages, and proof of every representation made by the developer or its agents.

SUPREME COURT: LAND DEVELOPER MUST REFUND BUYER IF PROMISES ARE BROKEN

The Supreme Court held that offers made by sales agents of property developers are not considered advertisements under the law, but a buyer remains entitled to a refund if the seller fails to honor agreements after the initial round of payments.

In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC's Third Division upheld the 2023 ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) and 2022 findings of the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) that directed Empire East Holdings Inc. to refund the initial payments totaling P130,000 made by the buyer, John Edrem Bautista.

In 2010 Bautista paid Empire East for a residential unit PHP 130,000, consisting of a PHP 20,000 reservation fee and PHP 110,000 in additional payments.

He claimed he made the payments because Empire East’s sales agent promised to issue a Contract to Sell once he paid the reservation fee. When more than a year passed without the contract being issued, Bautista stopped making payments and demanded a refund.

For its part, Empire East argued that the failure on its part to execute a Contract to Sell is not a ground for reimbursement. The company also said it was not bound by representations of its sales agent until the representation is reduced into writing and confirmed by a duly authorized officer.

But even after the buyer paid the P130,000 after a year, Empire East did not issue the contract to sell.

In ruling in favor of the property buyer, the SC agreed with both the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) and the Court of Appeals as it held that Bautista was entitled to a refund but clarified that the sales agent’s promise did not fall under Section 19 of PD 957.

The SC clarified that Section 19, which mandates truthful and non-misleading advertisements and sales materials, applies only to materials intended for the general public, such as those in those in newspapers, radio, TV, or similar mass communication channels. It does not cover promises made by a sales agent to individual buyers.

“The Civil Code has provisions regarding agency, obligations, and contracts which can be invoked by a buyer who may be aggrieved when a developer fails to comply with the promises of its sales agent,” it said.

“Thus, when parties enter into a reciprocal obligation, and one of the parties fails to comply, the other party is entitled to rescind the obligation and ask for the return of whatever he has paid under the same,” it added.

The Supreme Court also lamented that the property developer allowed the dispute to linger for nearly 16 years.Aside from the refund, the high tribunal also awarded the buyer with exemplary damages totaling P260,000, which is double the amount to be refunded by Empire East.

All monetary awards were set with an interest of six percent per annum until the amount is fully paid.

“While this sum is not insignificant to an ordinary Filipino, it is undeniable that a real estate corporation such as Empire East possessed the means and capacity to promptly satisfy the claim. Its refusal to do so is rendered even more unjustified by the fact that the validity of (buyer’s) claim was consistently affirmed by the HSAC Adjudicator, the HSAC, and the CA,”

31/07/2026

Two meaningful years of serving our valued clients with dedication and integrity. In just two years, we have not only stood by our clients in their legal journeys but also expanded our practice to reach and help more people.

Here’s to more years of growth, service, and making a difference in the lives of our clients and community. Thank you for being part of our journey! 🥳

16/04/2026

Gentle reminder: leaving your wife for another woman can cost you your freedom. ⚖️

SUPREME COURT SLAPS HUSBAND WITH UP TO 8 YEARS IMPRISONMENT FOR HAVING A MISTRESS THAT CAUSED WIFE MENTAL ANGUISH

The Supreme Court (SC) has convicted a man of psychological violence for causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife after abandoning her to live with his mistress, with whom he had two children, noting that criminal intent to cause such anguish is presumed from the act of infidelity.

In a 17-page decision penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the SC's Second Division has affirmed the criminal conviction of the accused for violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or psychological violence, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of four to eight years imprisonment.

The case stemmed from the criminal complaints filed by his own wife, whom he left for another woman. The accused and complainant were married in 2005 and had a son in 2008. While the wife was pregnant, she noticed the accused frequently coming home in the wee hours of the morning.

She later discovered a text message on his phone from another woman saying, "AYAW KO NG MAGING KABIT" (I don't want to be a mistress). When confronted, the accused dismissed it as a prank. The following day, he left their conjugal home and never returned, only visiting their son on weekends.

The wife later discovered that the accused was living with his mistress, with whom he fathered two children, and publicly flaunted their relationship and their children on social media. Because of this, the wife suffered mental and emotional anguish and was diagnosed by a psychiatrist with depression (dysthymia).

This prompted her to file a criminal complaint against the accused for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted the accused based on reasonable doubt, reasoning that the complaint was filed belatedly four years after the separation. It noted that the accused continued to provide financial support, and the marital infidelity allegedly occurred after their de facto separation.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.

The CA reversed the RTC's decision and convicted the husband, ruling that the evidence clearly showed his infidelity caused the wife mental and emotional suffering. This paved the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA's reversal of his acquittal violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy.

In dismissing his appeal, the high court ruled that double jeopardy does not attach to void judgments. While a judgment of acquittal is generally final and unappealable, it may be assailed by the People through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if it is shown that the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

It noted that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by acting with an obstinate disregard of basic and established rules of law and erroneously held that marital infidelity committed after a de facto separation falls outside the scope of R.A. No. 9262.

The highest bench emphasized that a mere de facto separation does not sever marriage bonds; thus, any extramarital affair maintained by a spouse still constitutes marital infidelity.

It underscored that marital infidelity is expressly recognized as a form of psychological violence under Section 3(c) in relation to Section (i) of RA No. 9262. The court added that the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of infidelity, as the act is inherently immoral and depraved.

It gave credence to the psychiatric evaluation, which revealed that the wife suffered emotional anguish as a result of the breakdown of her marriage. She had sleep disturbances, constant self-pity, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, palpitations, social withdrawal, and depression.

"At any rate, the law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. The law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim be presented in court since such experiences are personal to this party," the Supreme Court said.

"To be sure, whatever ###'s intention was when he chose another woman over his wife is immaterial. For his leaving their conjugal home and building a family with his mistress are acts that were done by him consciously and deliberately. He could not feign innocence by hiding behind good intentions-may they be excuses that he remained civil with AAA or he constantly supported his legitimate son, BBB. The incontrovertible fact remains: he was unfaithful to his wife, and this caused her irreparable mental and emotional hurt." it added.

Aside from imprisonment, he is also ordered to pay a fine of Php100,000.

19/03/2026

This Women’s Month, let us stand firm in defending the rights of women and children. Share this message. Speak up. Support survivors. The law is on their side—and so must we be.
🔗 Learn more about RA 9262 and how you can help.
📞 Reach out to legal advocates.
📢 Raise awareness in your community.