OBAOB & Partners LAW

02/10/2026

The has voided a couple’s marriage after finding that they falsely claimed five years of cohabitation to avoid obtaining a marriage license.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition of the Republic of the Philippines which sought to declare a 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.

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

The SC explained that while Article 3(2) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 provides that one of the formal requisites of a marriage is a valid marriage license, Article 34 of the same provides an exception to this requirement for couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal impediment to marry each other.

Citing the 2000 case of 𝘕𝘪ñ𝘢𝘭 𝘷. 𝘉𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘨, the SC stressed 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.

In this case, the SC said that the testimony of the husband showed the couple had not lived together continuously for five years, making their 𝘈𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to the solemnizing officer false. His testimony also supported the finding that they failed to meet the five-year requirement.

The SC found that from 2001 to 2004, before the husband left for Israel, they lived separately and only occasionally shared a rented room with relatives. 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 thus ruled that there was not enough evidence to prove that the couple continuously and exclusively cohabited as husband and wife for a period of five years immediately preceding the celebration of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174170.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168047.

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

27/08/2026

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/.

20/06/2026

‼️PUBLIC ADVISORY‼️

Unauthorized Use of the "Obaob & Partners Law" Name on Facebook

It has come to our attention that a page/account using the name "Obaob Law" is circulating online. This page is not affiliated with, authorized by, or connected to OBAOB & PARTNERS LAW OFFICE.

Our firm's only official page is:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100090582653852

Any other account using our firm's name, logo, photos, or the names of our lawyers without our authorization does not represent us in any capacity.

We ask the public to:
📌 Verify any communication claiming to be from our office by contacting us directly at our office address: Purok Tugas, Balangasan District, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur , or email/call at [email protected]/0945-857-0978

📌Avoid sending personal, financial, or confidential information, and avoid sending money or payment, to any unverified account.

📌Report any suspicious page using our firm's name to Facebook and, if fraud is suspected, to the appropriate authorities.

We thank the public for their vigilance and continued trust.
OBAOB & PARTNERS💚

29/05/2026

𝙃𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙮 𝘽𝙞𝙧𝙩𝙝𝙙𝙖𝙮, 𝘼𝙩𝙩𝙮. 𝙇𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙈𝙖𝙚 𝘿. 𝘾𝙖ñ𝙖𝙡𝙚𝙨 🎉

On your special day, we extend our heartfelt gratitude and best wishes. May the year ahead bring you continued success, good health, happiness, and fulfillment in all that you do.

Happy Birthday from your Obaob & Partners Law family! Lalaine Mae Dajao Cañales

28/05/2026

𝙃𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙮 𝘽𝙞𝙧𝙩𝙝𝙙𝙖𝙮, 𝘼𝙩𝙩𝙮. 𝘾𝙧𝙞𝙯𝙖 𝙈𝙖𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙤-𝙇𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙙. 🎉

Today, we celebrate the birthday of our esteemed Partner, whose dedication, grace, and leadership continue to inspire excellence and make a lasting impact on everyone around her. ✨💚

Criza Mae Prospero-Labitad

26/05/2026

𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐈𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘
In observance of Eid’l Adha (Feast of Sacrifice), Wednesday, May 27, 2026, has been declared a Regular Holiday nationwide pursuant to Proclamation No. 1264, s. 2026.

Please be advised that our office will be closed on the said date. Regular office operations and transactions will resume on Thursday, May 28, 2026.

Wishing all a meaningful and blessed Eid’l Adha.

30/04/2026