Iñosa Law

10/10/2026

Growing older should come with dignity, care and support. ❤️

For Filipino seniors, knowing their rights and the benefits available to them can help make everyday life a little easier.

This Elderly Filipino Week, let’s make sure our seniors know the benefits they deserve.

08/10/2026

The amendments introduce Section 48-A of Rule 39, which presumes that a foreign divorce between a Filipino and a foreign spouse allows the foreign spouse to remarry under foreign law, unless the divorce decree itself states that it is only a limited divorce.
The party opposing the petition now bears the burden of proving that the divorce is not absolute.
The new rule also presumes that an English translation of a foreign divorce document is accurate if the translator certifies its accuracy under oath.
These presumptions are disputable; they may be challenged with contrary evidence, under Section 3 of Rule 131.
The amendments, however, leave the existing legal framework unchanged. A petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce is still required, and the substantive requirements of Article 26(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 remain the same.
Recognition of a foreign divorce may still be opposed on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, lack of notice, fraud, or a clear mistake of law or fact.

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on October 7, 2026, approved amendments to the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 (A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC) to make it easier for Filipino spouses to prove a foreign divorce when seeking its recognition in Philippine courts.

Under the amendments, which will take effect 15 days after they are posted on the Supreme Court Website, Filipino spouses seeking recognition of a foreign divorce under Article 26(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 will no longer need to prove the applicable foreign law when filing their petition. They will only need to prove that the foreign divorce took place.

The amendments introduce Section 48-A of Rule 39, which presumes that a foreign divorce between a Filipino and a foreign spouse allows the foreign spouse to remarry under foreign law, unless the divorce decree itself states that it is only a limited divorce.

The party opposing the petition now bears the burden of proving that the divorce is not absolute.

The new rule also presumes that an English translation of a foreign divorce document is accurate if the translator certifies its accuracy under oath.

These presumptions are disputable; they may be challenged with contrary evidence, under Section 3 of Rule 131.

The amendments, however, leave the existing legal framework unchanged. A petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce is still required, and the substantive requirements of Article 26(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 remain the same.

Recognition of a foreign divorce may still be opposed on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, lack of notice, fraud, or a clear mistake of law or fact.

The amendments were approved upon the recommendation of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, and in consultation with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Jhosep Y. Lopez, and the Sub-Technical Working Group on the Concerns of Overseas Working Filipinos Regarding the Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decrees/Reports (Sub-TWG).

During consultations with the Sub-TWG, the Department of Foreign Affairs identified several challenges. Foreign family laws are often spread across different jurisdictions, making them difficult to obtain. Some countries have no designated official who can certify these laws, while foreign ministries generally do not provide official English translations.

Through these amendments, the Supreme Court aims to remove unnecessary barriers and make it easier for Filipinos to exercise their rights under the law.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174621.

The full text of the Supreme Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 Resolution A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court Website once available.

04/10/2026

When you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

04/10/2026

SUPREME COURT NULLIFIES MARRIAGE OVER FALSE COHABITATION AFFIDAVIT

The Supreme Court (SC) has voided a couple’s marriage after finding that they falsely claimed to have lived together for five years to dispense with the requirement of a marriage license.

In a 15-page ruling written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition seeking to declare the couple’s marriage valid despite the absence of a marriage license.

The couple had lived together as husband and wife since December 2003. In 2006, the husband left for Israel to work and returned in 2009 to marry his wife.

To facilitate their marriage without the required license, the couple executed an Affidavit of Cohabitation, claiming they had lived together for six years and were thus exempt from the marriage license requirement under the Family Code.

The husband, in 2013, filed a petition to declare the marriage void, arguing that the affidavit they executed was false because he was in Israel for most of the period it covered.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, finding that the couple had not actually lived together continuously for five years before the marriage.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, holding that the husband’s absence from 2006 to 2009 interrupted the required period of cohabitation. It also held that the affidavit could not substitute for a marriage license.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that cohabitation does not require constant physical presence and that the husband’s work in Israel did not end the relationship, as he returned to the Philippines for the wedding.

It also argued that he could not claim the affidavit was false after voluntarily executing it and using it to obtain a marriage license exemption.

In rejecting the contention of the SolGen, the SC said that under Article 3(2) of the Family Code, one of the formal requisites of a marriage is a valid marriage license.

It also explained that Article 34 provides an exception for couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal impediment to marry each other. The couple must state these facts in an affidavit, while the solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement attesting that no legal restriction exists.

The SC reiterated that the five-year cohabitation period is counted back from the marriage date. The couple must have lived together continuously and exclusively, without interruption or a third party.

The high bench, citing Niñal v. Bayadog, reiterated that the five-year cohabitation period is counted back from the marriage date. The couple must have lived together continuously and exclusively, without interruption or a third party.

It clarified that temporary absence does not interrupt cohabitation if the couple otherwise continued living as husband and wife, for example, by sharing a home and expenses or publicly presenting themselves as a couple.

The high court found the couple failed to meet the five-year requirement, saying they lived separately and only occasionally shared a rented room with relatives from 2001 to 2004.

From 2005 to 2009, while the husband was in Israel, there was no evidence that they presented themselves as spouses or that he intended to return to the Philippines to live with his wife.

The SC also found that the husband’s testimony showed the couple had not lived together continuously for five years, making their affidavit to the solemnizing officer false. His testimony also supported the finding that they failed to meet the five-year requirement.

02/10/2026

The Supreme Court ruled that a duplicate or photocopy of an original document may be admitted as evidence, unless there is a genuine question as to the authenticity of the original or it would be unfair to admit the copy.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the Court's First Division upheld the conviction of Ybo Lastimosa for murder, where a photocopy of the victim's death certificate was admitted as evidence.

During trial, eyewitnesses testified that Lastimosa shot Ildefonso Vega, Jr. in the head. The prosecution also presented a photocopy of Vega's death certificate confirming that he died from gunshot wounds.

Lastimosa argued that the prosecution failed to prove the crime because the original death certificate was not presented in court. He insisted that the photocopy should not have been admitted as evidence.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

Under Rule 130 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, a duplicate is generally admissible to the same extent as an original unless there is a genuine question regarding the original's authenticity or it would be unfair to admit the duplicate.

In this case, there was no dispute as to the authenticity of the original death certificate or any showing that it was unfair to rely on the photocopy. The Court also emphasized that while a duplicate may be admissible, its weight depends on how it is supported by other evidence.

The High Court affirmed Lastimosa's conviction and sentence of reclusion perpetua.

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/265758-people-of-the-philippines-vs-ybo-lastimosa/

01/10/2026

Parents are obligated to support their children under the Family Code. According to Romualdez Law Offices, child support is one of the most commonly litigated issues.

01/10/2026

"Very kind and helpful po si Atty.

I’m so blessed na sya ang nakausap ko about my problem.

Thank you so much po! Sobrang galing po ni Atty!"

- Angelica K.

29/09/2026

Before you hand over your original IDs, know why they're being requested.

Your ID contains personal information that can be used to verify your identity. Before giving it to someone, make sure you understand why they need it and how it will be used.

Before handing over your original ID, ask:
• who is requesting it
• why they need the original instead of a copy
• how long they will keep it
• whether it will be returned immediately
• how your personal information will be protected

When possible, provide a copy instead of surrendering your original ID.

If you are unsure whether it is necessary or proper to hand over your original ID, reach out to a lawyer.

28/09/2026

The has adopted the term "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮-𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘳" when referring to persons who have experienced sexual violence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division affirmed a man’s conviction for the r**e of a 12-year-old child.

The minor testified that while everyone was asleep, the accused, who was the common-law spouse of the minor’s mother, dragged the child outside the residence of her uncle, r**ed her, pointed a knife at her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident.

She told her uncle and aunt that the accused had been sexually abusing her since she was nine years old. She did not report it earlier because she feared his threats.

The SC found all the elements of r**e present and the accused positively identified as the ra**st. In addition to the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢 or up to 40 years in prison, the SC ordered the man to pay the victim-survivor PHP 450,000 in civil indemnity and damages.

The SC clarified its terminology in cases involving sexual violence. Rather than using the term "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮," it adopted "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮-𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘳" to acknowledge both the harm caused by the crime and the strength victims show in enduring and recovering from such violence.

As part of the government’s efforts to provide comprehensive support for victim-survivors, the SC also directed the Department of Social Welfare and Development to refer the minor to the proper r**e crisis center for assistance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174013.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168013.

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

27/09/2026

Legal knowledge is important, but moral integrity matters even more.