The Legal Counselor

The Legal Counselor The answer to your legal problem. Defending and protecting your legal rights. Book us for a schedule.

Legal Consultant|Notary Public|Contract Review|Retainership

We are open for face to face and online consultation.

20/09/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that being irresponsible in doing household chores and taking care of children may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

In a 13-page decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between Arnold Alfonso and Michelle Pamintuan-Alfonso on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Arnold and Michelle were high school classmates. In 1997, or eight years after their graduation, they unexpectedly met. Since then, they have become close and regularly exchanged phone calls.

Despite being in a relationship with another man, Michelle often visited Arnold's apartment. Later on Michelle and Arnold spent the night at the latter's apartment, where the two engaged in unprotected sexual in*******se that resulted in Michelle's unexpected and unwanted pregnancy.

At first, Michelle was contemplating aborting the child, but Arnold convinced her otherwise and offered marriage. After the wedding, Michelle and Arnold resided at the parental house. They were blessed with three children.

A year later their relationship turned sour. Arnold noticed the changes in Michelle's behavior. Michelle would be verbally aggressive towards him, crying loudly to gain sympathy from their neighbors. She also refused to do household chores or care for their children, instead relying on her mother to fulfill her domestic responsibilities.

Arnold also observed that Michelle has a luxurious lifestyle, which caused her to obtain looming debts from various people. It reached the extent that Arnold's father paid Michelle's debt to save her from being sued.

Over time, Arnold felt Michelle's growing coldness towards him. Michelle disavowed fulfilling his sexual needs by making excuses that she is tired and not in the mood.

Sometime in 2010, Michelle informed Arnold that she had secured a job that required deployment to Bicol for one month. However, to his surprise, Arnold later learned that Michelle was having an affair with another man. Since then, Michelle has refused to communicate with him and their children.

This paved the way for Arnold to file a petition for nullification of their marriage on the ground of Michelle's psychological incapacity to fulfill her marital obligations.

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and nullified their marriage, but it was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. This prompted Arnold to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In granting Arnold's petition, the high court held that he was able to illustrate that the incapacity of Michelle was so grave or serious that it already impaired her from carrying out the required ordinary marital duties. It gave credence to the psychological report, which diagnosed Michelle with histrionic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

The SC also emphasized that the incapacity of Michelle was incurable, as the pattern of persistent failure to assume her essential marital obligations was proven. It also took into account the instance where Michelle entered into an illicit affair with another man.

“In every marriage lies the vinculum juris—the juridical bond that unites the spouses in a legally and morally binding union governed by law. This vinculum juris imposes upon each spouse the essential marital obligations of mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support,” the Supreme Court said.

“Thus, in the present case, we hold that Michelle's psychological incapacity existed prior to and during the celebration of the marriage; the vinculum juris is deemed never to have validly arisen,” it added.

20/09/2025

SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS COA'S POWER TO RULE ON LEGALITY OF DISBURSEMENT OF GOV'T FUNDS

| The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Commission on Audit (COA) notice of disallowance on the disbursement of Medical/Health Care Allowance (MHCA) to former officials of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) but absolved its former secretary from liability to return the disallowed amount.

In a 13-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr., the SC En Banc partially granted the petition of former DAR Secretary Atty. Rene Villa and absolve him from solidary liability to return the disallowed P70.301 million given to former officials of DAR from 2001 to 2005 as their health care allowance.

The COA Audit Team issued notices of disallowances to DAR former officials, including Villa, on the disbursement of the MHCA pursuant to the collective negotiation agreement (CNA) entered into between DAR and the DAR Employees Foundation, Inc.

It found that the budget of the MHCA was charged to the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF) or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Fund, thereby violating Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 4776, which required that trust funds shall only be available for the specific purpose.

In 2017, the COA proper affirmed the notice of disallowance, as it held that a special fund like the CARP fund should only be obligated for the purpose for which it was created and that is for payment of compensation to landowners and expenses involved in the implementation of support services.

The state auditor has ordered the approving/certifying officers, including Villa, to return the disallowed amounts. Subsequently, Villa filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was also dismissed, prompting him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In partially granting Villa's petition, the high court cited the case of Amputuan vs. COA in absolving him from solidary liability. It emphasized that a mere signature in the CNA cannot be assumed to operate as an express or implied authority from the signatory thereof to release the MHCA arising from the agreement.

The SC stressed that there must be proof that Villa not only conspired with the persons who actually caused the disbursement of the MHCA but also acted with bad faith, malice, or gross negligence—all of which the COA Proper failed to adduce.

“Absent any proof to show petitioner's participation in the disbursement of the MHCA, the Court is hard-pressed to hold that petitioner should be absolved from solidary liability to return the disallowed amounts,” the Supreme Court said.

While Villa was absolved from liability, the SC, however, affirmed the notice of disallowance on the disbursement of the funds, as it recognized that COA is constitutionally empowered to exercise its general auditing power to determine, prevent, and disallow illegal, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures of government funds.

It emphasized that the audit power of the commission is provided under Article IX(D), Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, as "among the constitutional mechanisms that [give] life to the check and balance system inherent in our form of government."

"The Court has generally sustained the COA's decisions or resolutions in deference to its expertise in the implementation of the laws it has been entrusted to enforce... It finds that the COA Proper did not gravely abuse its discretion in affirming the propriety of the disallowance relative to the grant of MHCA to the officials and employees of DAR,” it added.

14/09/2025

Nagpasya ang na dapat umalis ang isang pampublikong institusyon sa lupang inookupahan nito kung wala itong pahintulot mula sa may-ari at may higit na karapatan ang may-ari na panghawakan ang ari-arian.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, ipinag-utos ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema sa Department of Education (DepEd) na bakantihin at ibalik sa may-ari nitong si Princess Joama Marcosa A. Caleda (Caleda) ang isang bahagi ng lupa na kinatatayuan ng isang paaralan.

Noong 2014, bumili si Caleda ng 10,637 metro kuwadrado na lupang palayan sa Cagayan sa pamamagitan ng Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights and Sale na nilagdaan ng mga tagapagmana ng rehistradong may-ari na si Bueno Gallebo (Gallebo). Pero nang bumisita si Caleda sa lupa para sa relocation survey, natuklasan niyang inookupahan ito ng Solana Fresh Water Fishery School (ang Paaralan), isang pampublikong institusyon sa ilalim ng DepEd Regional Office 2.

Nagpadala si Caleda ng ilang demand letter sa DepEd para iwanan ang lupain ngunit wala siyang natanggap na sagot. Nagsampa siya ng kaso para mabawi ang pagmamay-ari ng lupa at tanggalin ang anumang mga istrukturang itinayo dito.

Nangatwiran ang DepEd na hindi maaaring paalisin ang mga ahensiya ng gobyerno sa lupang ginagamit na para sa pampublikong layunin. Iginiit nito na may karapatan itong kunin ang ari-arian sa pamamagitan ng kapangyarihan ng eminent domain, at ang paghingi ng makatarungang kabayaran ang tanging remedyo ni Caleda.

Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema pabor kay Caleda. Sinabi nitong malinaw na napatunayan niya na higit siyang may karapatan sa ari-arian. May bisa ang kanyang titulo ng lupa at wasto ang lupang inilarawan dito, hindi katulad sa deed of sale ng Paaralan na tumutukoy sa isang katabing lote.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na habang ang gobyerno ay maaaring kumuha ng pribadong ari-arian para sa pampublikong paggamit sa pamamagitan ng kapangyarihan ng eminent domain, dapat gawin ito sa pamamagitan ng tamang legal na paglilitis at may wastong kabayaran o just compensation. Dahil walang proseso ng expropriation ang sinimulan sa kasong ito, hindi maaaring panatilihin ang Paaralan sa lupa sa pamamagitan lang ng pag-aalok na bayaran ito.

Nilinaw din ng Korte Suprema na mapipigilan lang ng isang pampublikong institusyon ang pagpapaalis kung nabigo ang may-ari ng ari-arian na igiit ang kanilang mga karapatan sa tamang panahon na itinuturing na isang implied na pagtanggap. Sa kasong ito, mabilis na kumilos si Caleda—nagpadala siya ng mga demand letter, nakipag-usap sa DepEd, nagparehistro ng kanyang mga claim, at nagsampa ng kaso sa loob ng dalawang taon matapos matuklasan ang pag-okupa ng Paaralan sa ari-arian.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/y35skjpf.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/58ja5trh.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


14/09/2025

Nilinaw ng na dapat pagpasiyahan ng Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), dating Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), at hindi ng Regional Trial Court (RTC) ang mga alitan hinggil sa mga kontrata sa condominium.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinawalang-bisa ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang naging pasya ng RTC na may sibil na pananagutan sa isa't isa sina Vivien M. Cadungog (Cadungog) at Sung Ha Jung (Sung) dahil sa isang kontrata ng pagbebenta na kinasasangkutan ng isang condominium unit.

Sa ilalim ng kontrata, pumayag si Cadungog, isang developer ng isang condominium building sa Cebu City, na ilipat ang unit kay Sung kapag nakumpleto na niya ang pagbabayad ng PHP 3.5 milyon. Nagbayad si Sung ng PHP 175,000 na paunang bayad, at nasundan ng PHP 3 milyon. Ang naiwang balanse ay PHP 258,950. Dahil sa hindi nabayarang halaga, tumanggi si Cadungog na ilipat ang unit.

Nagsampa si Sung ng reklamong kriminal laban kay Cadungog dahil sa paglabag sa Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957 o ang Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree.

Pinawalang-sala ng RTC si Cadungog sa kasong kriminal ngunit iniutos pa rin sa kanya na ilipat ang unit kapag nabuo ang bayad ng presyo ng pagbili o ibalik ang halagang nabayaran na ni Sung. Kwinestiyon ni Cadungog ang desisyong ito at iginiit niyang walang hurisdiksyon ang RTC sa sibil na aspeto ng kanyang kaso na hawak dapat ng HLURB.

Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema pabor kay Cadungog at idineklara nito na walang bisa ang desisyon ng RTC sa usaping sibil ng kaso.

Ipinaliwanag nito na habang maaaring mapagpasyahan sa isang kasong kriminal ang pananagutang sibil, hindi ito nalalapat kapag ang pananagutan ay nagmula sa isang kontrata, tulad ng sa kasong ito.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte na nag-ugat sa kanilang kontrata sa pagbebenta ang civil dispute nina Cadungog at Sung.

Dagdag pa ng Korte, sa ilalim ng PD 957, as amended, may eksklusibong hurisdiksyon ang HLURB (ngayon ay HSAC) sa mga kaso na kinasasangkutan ng kontraktwal at legal na mga obligasyon sa pagitan ng mga mamimili at mga developer ng mga proyekto sa real estate. May awtoridad ang HLURB sa mga ganitong kaso mula nang magsampa ng reklamo si Sung.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151440.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151432.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


14/09/2025

Pinawalang-sala ng ang isang akusado sa kaso ng droga matapos makitang nabigo ang pulisya na mahigpit na sundin ang kinakailangang tuntunin sa chain of custody para sa nasamsam na ma*****na.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, pinawalang-sala ng En Banc ng Korte Suprema si Allan Acdang na naunang hinatulan guilty ng Regional Trial Court dahil sa pagtatanim ng ma*****na na labag sa RA 9165 o Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Naaresto si Allan at ang kanyang kapatid sa isang operasyon ng pulisya noong 2011 sa Kibungan, Benguet dahil sa pagtatanim ng mga halaman ng ma*****na. Walang saksi noong unang kumuha ng litrato at nag-imbentaryo ang mga pulis sa mga nasamsam na ma*****na mula sa taniman.

Nahatulang maysala si Allan ng trial court at pinagtibay ito ng Court of Appeals.

Binaliktad ng Korte Suprema ang hatol kay Allan matapos malaman na nabigo ang mga pulis na magdala ng mga kinakailangang testigo sa panahon ng imbentaryo at pagkuha ng litrato ng nasamsam na ma*****na.

Sa ilalim ng RA 9165, dapat patunayan ng prosekusyon na kapareho ang mga sinuri sa lab at iniharap sa korte na mga nasamsam na halaman. Ginagawa ito sa pamamagitan ng chain of custody rule na nagdodokumento sa bawat hakbang ng paghawak sa mga nasamsam na droga—mula sa pagkumpiska, hanggang sa paglipat sa crime lab, hanggang sa presentasyon sa korte—para matiyak na nananatiling hindi nababago ang ebidensya.

Nilinaw din ng Korte Suprema sa kaso ng Nisperos v. People noong 2022 na dapat gawin kaagad ang pagmamarka sa lugar kung saan nakumpiska ang droga sa harap ng mga nagkasala (maliban kung sila ay nakatakas). Dapat din gawin ang imbentaryo at pagkuha ng mga larawan pagkatapos ng pagkumpiska ng droga sa presensiya ng akusado o ng kanilang kinatawan at ng mga kinakailangang saksi.

Kung hindi susundin ang mga pamamaraang ito, dapat ipaliwanag ng prosekusyon kung bakit at ipakita na napanatili ang integridad ng ebidensiya.

Sa kaso ni Allan, ipinasiya ng Korte Suprema na nabigo ang pulisya na ipakita na gumawa sila ng tunay na pagsisikap na mag-imbita ng mga saksi sa kanilang operasyon.

Sa pagpapawalang-sala kay Allan at pag-uutos sa kanyang agarang pagpapalaya, binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na napakahalaga ang mahigpit na pagsunod sa chain of custody rule dahil maaaring humantong sa pagpapawalang-sala ang pagkabigong patunayan ang pagkakakilanlan at integridad ng ebidensiya.

Basahin ang press release sa https://t.co/cGg8Ghkiuo.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151531.

Basahin ang Sumasalungat na Opinyon ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151544.

Basahin ang Sumasalungat na Opinyon ni Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151538.

Basahin ang Sumasang-ayon ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=151534.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


07/11/2024

DO’S AND DON’TS WHEN ASKING FOR LEGAL ADVICE

1. Mind your language and your manners.
Respect is valued, not just by lawyers, but by all individuals. So when you address the lawyer, and especially in a situation where you are asking him for a favor, you’ve got to make the effort to express yourself politely. No one wants to be given orders especially if there is no duty to obey, and when you don’t get anything back from obeying. Some people forget their basic courtesy and decorum, and, feeling entitled, would not only ask the lawyer to help them but to do it fast. These are the people who end up being rightfully ignored by lawyers when they ask for legal advice.

2. Don’t ask questions for the sake of testing the lawyer’s competence, or provoking him into an argument.
Make sure that when you ask legal questions, these, more or less, come from real life situations, if not, from problems that you yourself actually encounter and that's why you need help. If you are in the habit of creating scenarios simply for the sake of testing the lawyer’s skills or professional competence, or worse, if you dare to argue with the lawyer on a point of law, you are wasting his time, and depriving the people who deserve to be helped of the assistance they badly need from the lawyer. Don’t ever pretend to know more than the lawyer on matters of law, if you don’t even qualify to get into law school yourself.

3. Ask only questions that require a legal answer.
Even ordinary people have the common sense to know if a subject relates to law or not. If you feel that way about the question you have in mind, you are probably correct, so avoid badgering the lawyer for an answer to that kind of question. No lawyer would enjoy answering questions that you don’t find in the law books or in actual practice. For instance, asking when will the company pay your last salary after your resignation, or how long will it take for the court to decide on your complaint are subjective and depend on factors not strictly confined to law. Expect the answer “it depends”, or, “within reasonable time”. Leave it at that and don't ask for an exact answer because lawyers are just as clueless.

4. Never expect the lawyer to take your side just because you ask him for his advice.
A lot of people unload their frustrations on social media and demand everyone’s sympathy, especially from lawyers who don’t even know them. Lawyers are professionals and they will not betray their oath just to please you and say “you’re right”. Since you took the risk of asking a lawyer for his advice, expect only professional answers and be ready for the hard truths. Don’t ask believing the lawyer owes you to say the things you want to hear. If you are wrong, the lawyer will tell you so, and sometimes, without sugarcoating his indignation.

5. Be mindful of the lawyer’s time and his boundaries.
Once your legal problem had been answered and the lawyer had given his best to address all your concerns, you must show the courtesy of knowing when it’s time to stop. Never fall into the habit of endless repetition, asking the same questions over and over again, when you should know that they have already been answered. Another thing to avoid is shifting into another entirely different topic after the lawyer had painstakingly entertained your requests for clarification and guidance in your original problem. Don’t abuse the lawyer’s generosity and learn to appreciate the kindness he showed you in his willingness to share his time and expertise. Save your other questions for another day.

CTTO: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/cjCnRmi75dbwwY6A/

22/09/2024

SC: Maaaring kilalanin sa Pilipinas ang divorce kahit hindi dumaan sa korte sa ibang bansa

Hindi kinakailangang dumaan sa korte ang divorce sa ibang bansa para mabigyan ng bisa sa Pilipinas.

Ito ang naging Desisyon ng Korte Suprema sa kaso ng isang Pilipina na nakakuha ng divorce sa Japan mula sa kanyang asawang Hapon sa pamamagitan ng isang kasunduan.

Para kilalanin sa Pilipinas ang kanyang divorce, naghain siya sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) ng petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce na ipinagkaloob ng RTC. Kinwestiyon ito sa Korte Suprema ng Office of the Solicitor General.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, maaaring kilalanin ang divorce sa ibang bansa basta ito ay tanggap sa batas ng bansang nagkaloob nito, maging ito man ay dumaan sa judicial o administrative proceeding, o sa pamamagitan ng kasunduan ng mag-asawa.

Sa ilalim ng Article 26(2) ng Family Code, ang mga Pilipinong dating kasal sa dayuhan ay maaaring humiling sa mga korte ng Pilipinas na kilalanin ang divorce na wasto nitong nakuha sa ibang bansa, para maiwasan ang sitwasyon na pwede na mag-asawa ang dayuhan sa ibang bansa pero bawal pa rin mag-asawang muli ang Pilipino sa Pilipinas.

Pero ibinalik ng Korte Suprema sa RTC ang kaso para mabigyan ng pagkakataon ang Pilipina na patunayan ang batas ng Japan.

Basahin ang buong press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-recognition-of-divorce-not-limited-to-those-decreed-by-foreign-courts/

Basahin ang buong kaso: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/249238-republic-of-the-philippines-vs-ruby-cuevas-ng-a-k-a-ruby-ng-sono/



22/09/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases of r**e committed by force, threat, or intimidation, it is not required to prove that the victim resisted.

It is enough that such force, threat, or intimidation existed and was strong enough to prevent the victims from asserting their will, determined from the victims’ perspective.

The Court clarified that previous Decisions stating that a woman cannot claim to be a r**e victim unless she resisted are contrary to current doctrine. These pronouncements also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity. The right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected.

The belief that if a woman does not resist, then she consents to the r**e is unacceptable in any civilized society. It presumes that men are entitled to free access to a woman’s body at any given time and place.

“Rape is perhaps the only crime where the trial often focuses on the conduct of the victim instead of that of the accused. The need to prove lack of consent often becomes a question of the victim's behavior, her history, and her conduct before, during, and after the r**e as implying that some women can be ‘bad enough’ to be r**ed while others, because of their background, choices, and conduct, are simply lying when they claim that they were r**ed. It is time to strike down such uninformed and ignorant views,” the Court stressed.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-proof-that-victim-resisted-not-required-in-r**e-cases/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266706-people-of-the-philippines-vs-zzz/

Address

Tuguegarao City

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm
Saturday 9am - 5pm
Sunday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

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

Share