Magallanes, Alpeche, Penales, Camache Law Office

02/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168319.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

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

31/03/2026

Holy Week Office Schedule Advisory

In observance of the Lenten season, our office will be closed from April 1 to April 3, 2026 (Wednesday to Friday).

Regular operations will resume on April 6, 2026 (Monday).

Thank you.

18/12/2025

Warm Season’s Greetings!

Our office will be closed for the holidays from December 22, 2025 to January 2, 2026.

We look forward to serving you again starting January 5, 2026.

06/10/2025

The (SC) has nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charged on the unpaid bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrower’s consent.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s Special Third Division granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernandez, whose properties were foreclosed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) after they failed to pay a PHP 16-million loan.

Ang and Fernandez obtained a loan from UCPB. Based on the loan documents, however, UCPB was allowed to unilaterally adjust the interest rate every quarter based on market conditions.

When Ang and Fernandez failed to pay the total loan when it fell due, UCPB began to extrajudicially foreclose their properties.

Ang and Fernandez then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the foreclosure sale, claiming that because the bank had the sole power to set and increase the interest rate, the rate was unfair and invalid.

The SC initially agreed that the interest rate was invalid but still upheld the foreclosure sale, ruling that the borrowers remained in default.

Upon reconsideration, however, the SC ruled that if the interest rate was unconscionable or imposed unilaterally by the lender, then any foreclosure that follows is also invalid.

The Court emphasized that under the Civil Code, contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon. A contract that depends only on one party’s will is void.

In this case, the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB. Since the interest rate was invalid, the foreclosure of the properties was void.

The SC held that the borrowers should be given a chance to pay the loan at an interest rate agreed upon by both parties. Otherwise, they would be at the mercy of the lender and risk losing their property without a fair opportunity to settle their debt.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152735.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152719.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152726.

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

03/10/2025

Happy World Teacher’s Day! Thank you for your dedication, patience and passion to shape young minds and the future ❤️

05/09/2025

The (SC) has reiterated the rules in determining the appropriate legal actions for recovery of possession and/or ownership of land and the corresponding prescriptive periods in filing them. These remedies are: 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or ejectment, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖, and 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC 𝙀𝙣 𝘽𝙖𝙣𝙘 held that Lea Victa-Espinosa (Espinosa) correctly filed an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 to recover possession of her land within a year from dispossession. It explained that 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 may be filed not only when the dispossession lasted for a year but also when it lasted for a year or less when there is no allegation that the deprivation is by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

The SC also ruled that Espinosa’s action is not 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 as she did not seek in her complaint the recovery of ownership of the land.

After purchasing the property, Espinosa found that Spouses Noel and Leny Agullo were occupying a part of it. When they refused to leave despite her demand, Espinosa filed a complaint for recovery of possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The RTC dismissed the complaint for being filed too early. It explained that Espinosa may still file forcible entry, an ejectment suit, within one year from the time she learned of the deprivation of physical possession of the land. Since an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 can only be filed after that one-year period, RTC ruled that her complaint was premature.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that Espinosa’s complaint was not an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 but an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖, as she sought to recover possession based on her ownership of the property.

In their Petition before the SC, Spouses Agullo sought to reinstate the ruling of the RTC dismissing the case and insisted that Espinosa’s case was an 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 that was filed prematurely, as less than a year had passed since the alleged dispossession.

The Court denied the Petition but clarified that the action is not accion reivindicatoria but accion publiciana. It reiterated the actions available for recovery of possession and/or ownership of land:

• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or a summary ejectment case;
• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖; and
• 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙡 or summary ejectment proceeding is filed to recover physical possession of land when the dispossession was due to force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and has not lasted for more than a year.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 is filed when the dispossession lasted for more than a year, or even for a year or less, if it is not due to force, intimidation, or similar means.

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 is filed to recover both ownership and possession based on that ownership.

The Court explained that in 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖, the issue is who has the better right to possess the land, without necessarily claiming ownership. In contrast, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖 involves determining who owns the land, with possession granted to the rightful owner.

As what is sought in the complaint is recovery of possession and not ownership, and there is no allegation that Spouses Agullo disputed Espinosa’s title, the action is 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 and not 𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙖.

The Court also held that contrary to the findings of the RTC, the action was not premature, because 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖 may be filed even within one year from dispossession if no force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth was used. Since Espinosa did not claim that Spouses Agullo used any of these means, the action was correctly filed not as ejectment suit but 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙖.

The SC thus ordered the RTC to proceed to trial and decide the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/y7nr9hzx

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/38e2xzfa

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

06/08/2025

Review the documents of the properties you intend to purchase and ensure that everything is in proper order. Consult a lawyer if you have doubts and other concerns.

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

20/07/2025

The (SC) has ruled that the 15-year time limit for filing a bigamy case begins only when the bigamous marriage is actually discovered, not when it is registered with the government.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division found Erwin Bonbon guilty of bigamy after marrying Elizabeth Bonbon in 1999 while still legally married to another woman.

Records show that Erwin first married Gemma Cunada in 1988. Without ending that marriage, he married another woman in 1994 and then Elizabeth in 1999.

Erwin’s sisters learned about the third marriage in 2020 when they obtained documents from the Philippine Statistics Authority to claim their late mother’s benefits. They filed a bigamy case against Erwin and Elizabeth in 2021, 22 years after Erwin’s marriage to Elizabeth.

Erwin argued that the case was filed too late and had prescribed, claiming his sisters already knew about the marriage in 1999.

The SC disagreed and upheld the rulings of both the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which had convicted Erwin of bigamy.

Sentencing Erwin to up to eight years and one day in prison, the SC explained that under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, bigamy is committed when a person who is still legally married enters into another marriage that appears to be valid.

A case for bigamy must be filed within 15 years from the time the second marriage is actually discovered, not just registered. Since bigamous marriages are often kept secret, using the date of registration as the starting point for the time limit would make prosecution “almost impossible.”

In this instance, Erwin’s sisters learned about the marriage only in 2020; Erwin could not prove that they had been aware of it since 1999.

He also admitted that no family members attended the civil wedding, which took place in a different province. The case filed in 2021 thus remained within the 15-year legal limit.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/ynu8t7jr.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4u5bnvjy.

Read the Separate Concurrent Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://tinyurl.com/5n7ksdk7.

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

20/07/2025

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta, who also serves as Professorial Lecturer at the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses public bidding and how it differs from negotiated procurement in Episode 78: Public Bidding vs. Negotiated Procurement.

Who can participate in public bidding? What types of projects or purchases require public bidding? In criminal cases involving a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, is it enough to show there was a violation of the procurement laws?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, the website, and YouTube.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1iksYP5sEw1N5IvmcJUoiK?si=29c6296e0d0b4406

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

YouTube: https://youtu.be/2KXCYPB_DeY