Atty. Calabon- Law Office & Notary Public

06/03/2025

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

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

21/12/2024

The Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that premarital sexual relations leading to pregnancy are not immoral and do not justify suspending an employee.

The SC ruled that Bohol Wisdom School (BWS), a Christian school, illegally suspended a grade school teacher for becoming pregnant outside marriage.

It held that sexual relations between two unmarried, consenting adults are not immoral. No law prohibits this, nor does it go against any fundamental state policy found in the Constitution.

The SC clarified that under the law, the standard of morality applicable to all is public and secular, not religious.

Public and secular morality refers to conduct that is prohibited due to its harmful effects on human society rather than being based on religious beliefs.

The SC held that if the government were to otherwise base public policies and morals on religious beliefs, this would require everyone to conform to a religious program or agenda.

As the teacher’s pregnancy cannot be considered immoral, it was not a valid ground for her suspension.

The SC ordered BWS to pay the teacher backwages and benefits due her during the period she was suspended.

The Decision was from the Supreme Court’s First Division, written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario.

Read the full text of the press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-school-cannot-suspend-unmarried-teacher-for-being-pregnant/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/252124-bohol-wisdom-school-dr-simplicio-yap-jr-and-raul-h-deloso-vs-miraflor-mabao/



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

10/11/2024

03/11/2024

⚖️✨

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.

07/10/2024

The Supreme Court has emphasized that simply violating ordinances and regulations is not enough to justify a valid warrantless search and seizure, especially when the penalty does not involve imprisonment.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Supreme Court's Second Division acquitted Angelito Ridon of illegal possession of a firearm. The Court found the firearm seized from him inadmissible because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure.

Searches and seizures without a warrant may be allowed if they are part of a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. However, a lawful arrest must first be conducted before a warrantless search and seizure can be done.

In the present case, the police officers' basis for pursuing Ridon was his violation of traffic rules for entering a one-way street.

A traffic violation, however, does not call for an arrest but merely the confiscation of the driver’s license. Hence, regardless of Ridon’s guilt in entering the one-way street, he was not under arrest when the police officers pursued him.

As there was no valid arrest, the warrantless search that followed was also not valid.

Read the full press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-violation-of-ordinance-not-enough-to-justify-a-warrantless-search/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/252396-angelito-ridon-y-guevarra-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

29/08/2024

The Supreme Court has ruled that decades-long unjustified absence from the marital home may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-unjustified-absence-from-marital-home-considered-psychological-incapacity/

29/09/2023