VPC Trinidad & Associates

VPC Trinidad & Associates We are a law firm based in Quezon City.

The Supreme Court recognizes co-ownership of property in same s*x relationships.
10/02/2026

The Supreme Court recognizes co-ownership of property in same s*x relationships.

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that same-s*x couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the Family Code, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ARjMs7mdD/?mibextid=wwXIfr
28/01/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ARjMs7mdD/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session today, January 28, 2026, denied the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, which questioned the removal of an annotation on respondent Antonio V. Mitra’s (Mitra) land title.

Mitra owns a parcel of land in Quezon City. After his transfer certificate of title (TCT) was presumed lost or destroyed, he applied for administrative reconstitution.

Following Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, the law that governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles, the reconstituted title contained an annotation stating that it was without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted on the original copy at the time it was lost or destroyed.

Twenty-seven years later, Mitra asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the annotation, pointing out that no one had claimed any interest in the property during that period. The RTC granted the request and ordered the removal of the annotation. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, ruling that the publication and posting requirement no longer applied because of the long lapse of time since the title was reconstituted.

Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, the SC explained that under R.A. No. 26, posting and publication are required only if the petition to cancel the mandatory annotation is filed within two years from the date of administrative reconstitution, and no petition to annotate an omitted interest has been filed during that period.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159902.

The full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 264862, Republic of the Philippines v. Antonio V. Mitra, shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BWmfJGGTq/?mibextid=wwXIfr
06/08/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BWmfJGGTq/?mibextid=wwXIfr

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/.

There is no such thing as “no show” or “non-appearance” nullity of marriage case. Wag po tayo magpaloko. Magkonsulta po ...
01/08/2025

There is no such thing as “no show” or “non-appearance” nullity of marriage case. Wag po tayo magpaloko. Magkonsulta po sa abogado.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16rN7BNsez/?mibextid=wwXIfr

A 33-year-old woman was arrested in an entrapment operation initiated by the Mambaling Police Station at a mall in South Road Properties (SRP) on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, at around 9:20 a.m.

https://l.cdn.ph/5kNulm

https://www.facebook.com/100080445101466/posts/739996888691808/?mibextid=wwXIfr
06/06/2025

https://www.facebook.com/100080445101466/posts/739996888691808/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The (SC) has ruled that when a Filipino asks a Philippine court to recognize a foreign divorce, they only need to prove the law of the country where the divorce was obtained – not the law of their foreign spouse’s nationality.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division sent a case back to the Court of Appeals (CA) to give a Filipina a chance to properly prove the divorce laws of Kentucky, United States of America (U.S.A).

The Filipina married a Peruvian citizen in New Jersey, U.S.A; they later settled in Kentucky. Due to marital issues, the husband ended the marriage by obtaining a divorce decree from a Kentucky court.

The Filipina then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court in the Philippines to have the divorce recognized. She submitted a copy of the divorce decree, along with printouts of Kentucky and Peruvian marriage laws.

The SC clarified that in recognition of foreign divorce cases, what matters is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree. Since the divorce was granted in Kentucky, only Kentucky law needed to be proven.

The SC explained that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, a Filipino may remarry if their foreign spouse gets a valid divorce abroad that allows them to remarry. Philippine courts must first determine if the divorce was valid under the applicable foreign law, and the Filipino spouse must prove this law.

The SC also emphasized the relevance of the international law principle of comity of nations. This principle allows judicial acts of one country – such as court rulings or decrees – to be recognized in another, based on mutual respect between states. It also acknowledges the authority of a foreign state not only over its citizens but also over other individuals under its jurisdiction, like legal residents.

However, the SC returned the case to the CA to give the Filipina, who submitted a mere printout of Kentucky law, a chance to submit the proper documents.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4jhyh8vv.

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

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

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CS8E2tK9o/
30/04/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CS8E2tK9o/

The (SC) has reaffirmed that testimonies from a spouse’s family and friends can help prove psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division declared the marriage of Jeffery A. Green (Jeffery) and Rowena Manlutac Green (Rowena) null and void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity.

Jeffery filed a petition to nullify their marriage, claiming that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated. As evidence, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

According to the said report, Rowena frequently mismanaged their finances, accumulating debts of up to PHP 4 million. She was also accused of cheating on Jeffery and lying about the paternity of their child.

Ruling that Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, the SC emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse. This approach helps avoid potential bias in favor of the spouse who filed the petition.

The SC also reiterated that so long as the totality of the evidence can prove a spouse’s psychological incapacity at the time the marriage was celebrated, the marriage can be nullified under Article 36 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/36crdfhb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3c3t54b7.

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

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Ezy94a8Yz/?mibextid=wwXIfr
26/04/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Ezy94a8Yz/?mibextid=wwXIfr

| The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the dismissal from service of an employee who tested positive for illegal drug use as it qualifies as serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination under the Labor Code.

In an 11-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC Special Third Division has affirmed its earlier ruling, which dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Joy Villarico, a crane operator of D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI).

The legal dispute began when Villarico tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol, a dangerous drug under Republic Act No. 9165, and was declared unfit to work during his preemployment medical examination. Villarico also tested positive in the confirmatory test. Thereafter the DMCI dismissed him from the service, citing its employee handbook, which states that the use of controlled substances is prohibited and punishable by dismissal.

This prompted Villarico to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter, which was subsequently dismissed. According to the labor arbiter, there was no illegal dismissal since Villarico was not dismissed in the first place but his contract simply expired. The said disposition was later on upheld by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals, paving the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

The high court ruled to affirm the ruling with modification, noting that Villarico is considered a regular employee since he was hired several times by DMCI for nine years. But the court said he was not illegally dismissed since his service was terminated for a just cause.

“We noted that Villarico was not able to dispute that he was found positive for prohibited drugs. In this regard, the use of illegal drugs qualifies as serious misconduct under Article 297 of the Labor Code. Since he was validly dismissed, Villarico was not entitled to back wages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement," the SC said.

"Here, the dismissal of Villarico was for a just cause. To recall, he was dismissed by DMCI et al. since he tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol, a dangerous drug under Republic Act No. 9165. We held that Villarico did not present evidence to refute the medical result...To reiterate, the use of illegal drugs qualifies as a serious misconduct, which is one of the just causes for termination under Article 297 of the Labor Code," the SC added.

However, the court denounced DMCI for not observing the requirements of due process in terminating Villarico's employment, as he was not given the required two notices before he was dismissed, making it liable for nominal damages.

“Clearly, the established rule is that failure to observe the procedural due process in dismissing an employee on the ground of just cause does not render the dismissal invalid or ineffectual but only subjects the employer to the payment of nominal damages in the amount of PHP 30,000.00," the SC said.

The court ordered the DMCI to pay Villarico nominal damages in the amount of PHP 30,000.00, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and attorney's fees.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DkY3Tz6cy/?mibextid=wwXIfr
25/04/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DkY3Tz6cy/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Annulment and nullity of marriage cases must now be filed and served electronically through email, except for initiatory pleadings.

In A.M. No. 25-01-13-SC, the En Banc expanded Rule 13-A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates electronic filing and service of pleadings, motions, and other papers in civil cases in first- and second-level courts.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended this inclusion, noting that these cases follow similar procedures to civil actions.

The amendment takes effect after publication of the Resolution on April 24, 2025.

Read the press release in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-requires-electronic-filing-for-annulment-and-nullity-of-marriage-cases/

Read the full text of A.M. No. 25-01-13-SC, Re: Inclusion of the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage and Annulment of Marriage in the Coverage of Rule 13-A of the Rules of Court, at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25-01-13-sc-re-inclusion-of-the-declaration-of-absolute-nullity-of-marriage-and-annulment-of-marriage-in-the-coverage-of-rule-13-a-of-the-rules-of-court/ .

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

The Supreme Court ruled that in bigamous marriages, only the spouse without a previous marriage can file a case to decla...
14/02/2025

The Supreme Court ruled that in bigamous marriages, only the spouse without a previous marriage can file a case to declare it null and void.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1XtTknUd1G/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Tanging ang mga naagrabyadong asawa lang ang maaaring maghain ng petisyon para ipawalang-bisa ang kanilang kasal.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, tinanggihan ng ang petisyon ng isang Pilipina na gustong ipadeklarang walang bisa ang kanyang ikalawang kasal dahil sa pagiging bigamous nito. Bigamous ang kasal kapag nauna nang ikinasal ang alinman sa mag-asawa.

Unang ikinasal ang Pilipina sa isang Chinese sa Hong Kong at sa Pilipinas. Pagkauwi ng Pilipinas, ikinasal naman siya sa isang Pilipino na dati niyang naging kliyente sa Hong Kong.

Nakakuha ang kanyang unang asawa ng divorce sa Hong Kong na kinilala ng isang korte sa Parañaque.

Makalipas ang 14 na taon, naghiwalay naman ang Pilipina at ang kanyang Pilipino na asawa. Hiniling ng Pilipina sa korte na ipawalang-bisa ang ikalawang kasal dahil sa pagiging bigamous nito. Gusto rin niyang magpakasal muli. Pero tinanggihan ng Regional Trial Court at ng Court of Appeals ang kanyang petisyon.

Sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema, tanging ang naagrabyado o inosenteng asawa mula sa alinmang kasal ang may karapatang magpetisyon para sa pagpapawalang-bisa ng pangalawang kasal. Sa kasong ito, ang unang asawa ng nagpetisyon ang may hawak ng karapatang iyon, ngunit nawala ito pagkatapos makakuha ng diborsiyo. Ang karapatang ito ay hindi nailipat sa petitioner, na itinuturing na nagkasalang asawa.

Sa ilalim ng Article 35(4) ng Family Code, ang bigamous marriages, o ang mga kasal na pinasok habang ang alinmang partido ay legal na kasal sa iba, ay hindi wasto sa simula. Gayunpaman, ang mga bigamous na kasal ay dapat pa ring ideklarang walang bisa ng korte para sa layunin ng muling pagpapakasal.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-guilty-spouse-cannot-seek-nullity-of-bigamous-marriage/.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/g-r-259520/.


https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-recognition-of-divorce-not-limited-to-those-decreed-by-foreign-courts/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZ...
20/09/2024

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-recognition-of-divorce-not-limited-to-those-decreed-by-foreign-courts/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2PanCdahnGEGrbizyHruXbW4uWC40O4IILefIK7iTTUTVQMIOJmVS8K0k_aem_rg7Z6xbZHB-MtjgyMeGt_Q

SC: Recognition of Divorce Not Limited to Those Decreed by Foreign Courts September 20, 2024 The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign divorce decrees do not require judicial proceedings abroad to be recognized in the Philippines. The Supreme Court En Banc, in a decision written by Associate Justice....

Address

West Trade Plaza, No. 132 West Avenue
Quezon City

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when VPC Trinidad & Associates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to VPC Trinidad & Associates:

Share