What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm Saturday 9am - 5pm Sunday 1pm - 5pm

https://www.facebook.com/131316553409486/

Sokoken Law Office, AE 177 Western Buyagan, Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet (2026)

27/03/2026

SC Clarifies Rule on When to Dismiss a Case for Failing to State a Cause of Action.

The SupremeCourtPH (SC) has clarified that a complaint or petition may only be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action after an examination of the complaint or information itself, together with its annexes—strictly excluding the pleadings or submissions of other parties, reconciling conflicting rulings on the issue.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the lower courts erred in dismissing a petition for quieting of title for supposedly failing to state a cause of action and in interchanging this concept with “dismissal for lack of cause of action.”

A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another, the three elements of which are:

1. a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;

2. an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and

3. an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

The case arose from a land dispute between the groups of Inocencio Taganile and Filomena Delos Santos Dolar.

Taganile’s group claims that it has occupied a portion of land along Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue in Rosario, Pasig City, since 1970. After learning that the land had been registered in the name of Dolar’s group, they filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to challenge the title.

Dolar’s group, on the other hand, claims that Taganile’s group were mere lessees. They filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that it did not state a cause of action because it lacked supporting documents.

The RTC dismissed the case after considering both the petition and the evidence presented by Dolar’s group. It ruled that the petition failed to state a cause of action because it did not include proof of the Taganile’s group’s claim to the land. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling.

The SC disagreed. It clarified the difference between failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action.

A cause of action exists when a legal right is violated. Courts cannot hear a civil case unless there is a cause of action. A case may be dismissed if the complaint does not state one, or if the party later fails to prove it with evidence. These are different grounds.

To determine whether a complaint fails to state a cause of action, the court looks only at what is written in the complaint and assumes the allegations are true. If, even assuming those facts are true, the court still cannot grant the relief asked for, it can dismiss the complaint on this ground.

In contrast, to determine whether a case lacks a cause of action, the court looks at the evidence presented.

The SC noted that confusion arose from past rulings that allowed courts, in some instances, to look beyond the complaint, such as when the allegations appear to be legally impossible or unfounded. This blurred the difference between failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action.

To settle the issue, the SC ruled that courts may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action only by examining the complaint and its attachments—nothing more. Courts must not consider other pleadings or submissions at this stage.

The SC explained:

“Once the trial court considers other pleadings submitted by the parties or evidence admitted during the proceedings, it is no longer determining a failure to state a cause of action, but rather the very existence of one. In doing so, the ground for dismissing the complaint or petition ceases to be ‘failure to state a cause of action’ and becomes ‘lack of cause of action.’”

Applying this rule, the SC found that the RTC and CA improperly relied on the submissions and evidence of Dolar’s group. They prematurely ruled on the existence of a cause of action without giving Taganile’s group the chance to present evidence.

The SC also found that, based on the allegations alone, the petition was able to establish a case for quieting of title, noting Taganile group’s claims of long-standing possession and houses built on the property since the 1970s.

The SC directed that the case be returned to the RTC to continue the proceedings and receive evidence on the parties’ claims.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162612

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162606

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

26/12/2025

SC PROVIDES GUIDEPOSTS IN PROVING IDENTITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS IN CRIMINAL CASES.

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced ### to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered ### to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved ### wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

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

23/12/2025

PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION ARISES WHEN PUBLIC FUNDS WERE SPENT FOR PERSONAL USE—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that a presumption of malversation arises when a government official uses public funds for personal purposes or for purposes contrary to those intended by law.

In a 14-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the SC's First Division affirmed the criminal conviction of former Loreto, Agusan del Sur mayor Herminio Casal Reyes for malversation of public funds, sentencing him to a penalty of 6-10 years in prison and ordering him to pay a fine of P1.6 million.

In 2003, Reyes approved the grant of a loan to the municipal officials to purchase motorcycles to be used exclusively for official purposes. They sourced out the funds by realigning the budget that was originally set aside for the construction of the municipal building but which remained idle due to the suspension of the construction.

The municipal government, through Reyes, other Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members, the municipal secretary, and the budget officer, then entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the diversion of funds allocated for the construction of the municipal building. The SB also enacted three resolutions for the said endeavor.

After the passage of the aforesaid resolutions, the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao received an anonymous complaint, reporting the misappropriation of the amount of P1.6 million that was allocated for the construction of the municipal building.

The Ombudsman-Mindanao subsequently referred the matter to the COA for audit investigation. After the probe, the COA recommended the filing of charges against Reyes and several other SB members and municipal officials for violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019, and for malversation of public funds.

The Sandiganbayan found Reyes and other accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of graft and malversation, prompting them to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming Reyes' conviction for malversation, the high court found that all four elements of malversation are present. It cited Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that malversation of public funds is committed by the public official who misappropriates public funds for their own personal use or allows any other person to take such public funds for the latter's personal use.

The highest bench noted that even though the purpose of the loans to the municipal officials, as stated in the MOA was for them to purchase a service vehicle for public use or official purposes; the fact remains that Reyes is accountable for said funds as he failed to account for the same.

Meanwhile, as to the graft cases, Reyes and other accused were acquitted after finding that they acted in good faith and without manifest partiality in making the transaction and processes.

22/12/2025

SC Affirms Murder Conviction of Police Officers in Kian Delos Santos Case.

The has affirmed the murder conviction of three police officers for the killing of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos during an anti-drug operation in Caloocan City in 2017.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC's Second Division found police officers Arnel Oares (Oares), Jeremias Pereda (Pereda), and Jerwin Cruz (Cruz) guilty of murder. They were sentenced to 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢, or up to 40 years in prison, and ordered to pay Kian's family PHP 275,000 in damages.

The SC, however, changed the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals by removing the phrase "without eligibility for parole." This applies only when there are circumstances that justify the death penalty, which were not present in this case.

On the evening of August 16, 2017, witnesses saw the officers stop and frisk Kian in Baesa, Caloocan City. After allegedly finding suspected drugs, the officers punched him as he cried and begged to be allowed to go home because he had an exam the next day.

The officers then forced Kian to hold a towel covering what appeared to be a gun and made him stand with his shirt raised to cover his head. Witnesses heard one officer ask whether they should take Kian to the police station, to which the others replied, "𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘢 𝘯𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘰."

The officers dragged Kian toward a dark area near a river. Moments later, Kian was shot multiple times by Oares and Pereda, while Cruz stood guard.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted the officers of murder and imposed the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢 without eligibility for parole.

The SC affirmed the conviction, ruling that all the elements of murder as defined under Article 248 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 were present.

In this case, Oares admitted to shooting Kian. Witnesses and forensic evidence confirmed that the officers were responsible for the killing. An examination of Kian's body showed five gunshot wounds, two of which were to the head.

The SC held that the killing involved treachery. A medico-legal officer testified that Kian was likely sitting or kneeling when he was shot, based on the gunshot wounds. The bullets entered from the side and back of his head, showing that he likely did not see his attackers and was unable to defend himself.

The SC also found that the officers deliberately took Kian to a secluded location and placed him in a helpless position, enabling them to kill him with impunity and ensuring the ex*****on of the crime.

Dismissing Oares’ claim that he was merely performing his duties, the SC stressed that "the killing of a minor could not be considered standard in this operation” and that the “performance of duties does not include murder.”

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158265.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158245.

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

18/12/2025

SC: Bank Account Holder Info Disclosable in Cybercrime Cases. Financial Details of Deposits Remain Private.

The (SC) has held that while financial details of bank deposits remain confidential, the Cybercrime Prevention Act allows disclosure of bank account holder information for cybercrime investigations.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by EastWest Rural Bank (EastWest), which questioned the warrant to disclose computer data (WDCD) issued by the court and the subsequent Disclosure Order issued by the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG) which required EastWest to disclose bank account holder information.

This EastWest bank account holder information sought to be disclosed is the account where Leonard Vendiola’s money was transferred after he was scammed by a caller posing as a bank employee.

Vendiola reported to the PNP-ACG that a caller who introduced herself as a bank employee deceived him by promising rewards contingent to disclosing his email and one-time password. When he checked his bank account, he discovered that an amount of PHP 10,000 was transferred to an EastWest account.

PNP-ACG applied for a WDCD to identify the EastWest account holder involved in the alleged scam. This was granted by the Regional Trial Court which authorized the PNP-ACG to compel EastWest to disclose and preserve data relating to the account holder. Pursuant to this, the PNP-ACG issued a Disclosure Order to EastWest.

EastWest filed a petition with the Court of Appeals challenging the WDCD and arguing that the Bank Secrecy Law prohibits banks from revealing any information about bank deposits, including the identity of the account holder. It maintained that this rule remains in force because it was not repealed by the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

EastWest also asserted that it should not be subject to the Cybercrime law’s disclosure rules because it is a financial institution rather than a communications service provider.

The SC rejected these arguments and upheld the validity of the WDCD and Disclosure Order.

The SC clarified that while the Bank Secrecy Law protects the confidentiality of bank deposits and their financial details, it does not prevent the disclosure of basic identifying information when allowed by law. Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, law enforcement agencies may, with a court-issued warrant, require the disclosure of computer data necessary to investigate cybercrime offenses.

The SC ruled that EastWest is considered a service provider under the Cybercrime Prevention Act because their digital banking services, such as online banking platforms, mobile applications, and automated email notifications, allow customers to communicate and transact through computer systems. As a banking institution, EastWest also processes and stores substantial amounts of computer data both in the course of its operations and on behalf of its customers, placing it within the law’s coverage for the disclosure of computer data when authorized by a court-issued warrant.

Read the full text of the press release at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157653

Read the full text of the Decision at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157646

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

04/12/2025

SC Approves Office of the Solicitor General's Re-Entry of Appearance in Duterte's ICC Arrest Case.

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on December 3, 2025, acted on G.R. No. 278747 (𝘋𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘦𝘭𝘢 𝘙𝘰𝘴𝘢 𝘷. 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯, 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭.) by granting the Manifestation with Entry of Appearance filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), allowing the OSG to resume its role as counsel for the respondents in the case.

This is in connection with the petition filed by former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte and Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa challenging Duterte’s arrest and the Philippine government’s cooperation with the International Criminal Court.

The OSG had earlier asked to be excused from representing the respondents. The Supreme Court granted that request in a Resolution dated April 2, 2025.

However, on December 1, 2025, the OSG informed the Court that it was again entering its appearance as counsel for the respondents and requested copies of all Court issuances related to the case.

Read the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156662.

A copy of the available pleadings may be downloaded from the Current Cases section of the Supreme Court website.

22/11/2025

SC: PROPERTIES LINKED TO PUBLIC OFFICER MAY BE FORFEITED IF PROVEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED.

The has ruled that wealth acquired by a public officer during their time in office that clearly exceeds their lawful income is presumed unlawfully acquired and may be forfeited, even if registered under the names of other individuals.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts in the name of retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot (General Ligot), as well as assets traced to him but registered under his wife, children, and relatives.

The Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle investigation on General Ligot—who served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his retirement in 2004, and was a commissioned comptroller during the relevant period—to determine whether the properties he acquired during active service exceeded his salary and other lawful income.

Its probe into General Ligot’s declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth from 1982 to 2003, which did not reflect the actual properties under his name and those of his close family members, led to a petition for forfeiture filed against him before the Sandiganbayan. Also named in the petition were his wife, their children, and his sister and brother-in-law, who were allegedly used as fronts to conceal his assets.

The Sandiganbayan ordered the forfeiture of the properties worth PHP 102 million as well as deposits and investment funds amounting to PHP 53 million after finding that the same were unlawfully acquired.

The SC upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, noting that General Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names.

Regarding the condominiums, even though they were titled in his sister’s name, the amortizations were paid by General Ligot. The condominium listed under his brother-in-law’s name was initially bought by General Ligot’s wife, who lacked her own income.

The SC held that these circumstances indicate that General Ligot was the true owner, even if the legal titles were in other people’s names.

Under Republic Act No. 1379, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.

This presumption applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

The SC emphasized that registration under another person’s name does not prevent forfeiture when true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155660.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155651.

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

05/06/2025

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/.

05/06/2025

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that in drug cases, prosecutors must raise all their objections when an accused offers to plead guilty to a lesser crime. Any objections not raised are considered waived.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) ruling that found Rodulfo Ferraren Aquino (Aquino) guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002.

The SC also updated its 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘭𝘦𝘢-𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 as set forth in the 2022 case of 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰, by adding the following guidelines:

1. If the prosecution objects to a plea bargaining motion but cites only some possible grounds, any other ground not raised is considered waived.

2. If the prosecution raises several objections, but the trial court addresses only one, the appellate court or the SC shall direct the trial court to resolve the remaining issues based on the Montierro guidelines and this case.

3. If the records before the appellate court or the SC are incomplete and it is unclear whether either of the above scenarios applies, the trial court shall be directed to rule again on the matter, applying the principles in 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰 and this case.

Aquino was charged with selling and possessing shabu. He asked the RTC to allow him to plead guilty to a lesser crime, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, for both charges. The prosecution agreed to the plea bargain for the possession charge but objected to the plea for the drug sale charge, saying it violated Department of Justice (DOJ) rules. The RTC, however, granted Aquino’s plea.

The SC, agreeing with the RTC, reiterated the 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰 ruling that courts may reject the prosecution’s objection to a plea bargain in drug cases if the only reason for the objection is that the plea violates rules, provided the plea follows the SC’s official plea bargaining framework.

However, the SC also clarified that courts do not have unlimited authority and cannot reject the prosecution’s objection if it is based on valid grounds, such as if the accused is not qualified for plea bargaining, or if the plea does not follow the SC’s approved guidelines.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/y627x9fk.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4pcu6ke3.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/5898sb24.

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

20/05/2025

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/.

09/05/2025

SUPREME COURT: Child's Best Interest Prevails Over Parental Custody Agreement.

The (SC) has reiterated that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the child’s best interest.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division granted the petition filed by Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and his parents challenging a Court of Appeals ruling which upheld the validity of a compromise agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena Cabrillos, the mother of his child.

The SC sent the case back to the Family Court for determination of parental custody. It also gave custody to petitioners Jeffrey and his parents, who have actual care of the child, while the case remains pending.

Jeffrey and Sheena had a child in 2013. The couple eventually separated, with Sheena moving with their child to her parents’ home, and with Jeffrey exercising custody over the latter during long vacations.

In 2020, the child’s visit to Jeffrey was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown, with Jeffrey refusing to return the child to Sheena even after restrictions were lifted. Sheena thus filed a complaint with the police and a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the Family Court.

The Family Court issued the writ and terminated the case. It adopted in an order the agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena that the latter would have custody of the child by July 2021. The Court of Appeals upheld this agreement as a provisional custody arrangement.

Petitioners then argued before the SC that the mere agreement between the parents before trial cannot determine the issue of a child’s custody.

Ruling in petitioners’ favor, the SC stressed that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child’s appearance in court.

Trial courts must consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if:

- the petitioner has a legal right to custody;
- the child is being kept from them by the other party; and
- being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.

In this case, the SC found that the Family Court failed to evaluate these factors, relying solely on the parents’ agreement without conducting a case study or assessing parental fitness. It added that compromise agreements between parents as to a child’s custody are frowned upon. Courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the child’s rights and welfare are protected.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3p6v2cc2.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/52yna5zv.

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

Sokoken Law Office

27/03/2026

26/12/2025

23/12/2025

22/12/2025

18/12/2025

04/12/2025

22/11/2025

05/06/2025

05/06/2025

20/05/2025

09/05/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm
Saturday	9am - 5pm
Sunday	1pm - 5pm