LGPV Law - Notarial Services

14/09/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a public institution must vacate the land it occupies if it lacks permission from the rightful owner and the owner has a better right of possession.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division ordered the Department of Education (DepEd) to vacate and return a parcel of land to its owner, Princess Joama Marcosa A. Caleda (Caleda).

In 2014, Caleda bought a 10,637 square meter rice land in Cagayan through an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights and Sale signed by the heirs of the registered owner, Bueno Gallebo (Gallebo).

However, when Caleda later visited the land for a relocation survey, she discovered that it was being occupied by the Solana Fresh Water Fishery School (the School), a public institution under DepEd Regional Office 2.

Caleda sent several demand letters for DepEd to vacate the land, but received no reply. She then filed a case to recover possession of the land and remove any structures built on it.

DepEd argued that government agencies cannot be evicted from land already used for public purposes. It claimed it had the right to take over the property through its power of eminent domain, and that Caleda’s only remedy was to ask for just compensation.

Ruling in favor of Caleda, the SC found that the latter had clearly proven her better right to the property. Her land title was valid and accurately described the land, unlike the School’s deed of sale, which referred to an adjacent lot.

The SC emphasized that while the government can take private property for public use through its power of eminent domain, this must be done through proper legal proceedings and with payment of just compensation. Because no expropriation process was initiated in this case, the School could not retain the land simply by offering to pay for it.

The SC also clarified that a public institution can only prevent eviction if the property owner fails to assert their rights in time, which is considered an implied acceptance.

In this case, Caleda acted quickly—sending demand letters, talking to DepEd, registering her claims, and filing a case within two years of discovering the School’s occupation of the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/y35skjpf.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/58ja5trh.

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/.

10/03/2025

The has taken an important step towards modernizing legal processes by approving the Rules on Electronic Notarization (E-Notarization Rules) – a significant reform that leverages technology to make notarial services more accessible and efficient nationwide.

Under A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the E-Notarization Rules and the Guidelines on the Accreditation of Electronic Notarization Facility Providers (Accreditation Guidelines). These rules introduce Electronic Notaries Public (ENPs), who are authorized to perform notarial acts for individuals located anywhere in the Philippines and, in certain cases, even abroad.

This expanded jurisdiction addresses a key limitation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules), where traditional notaries public were restricted to performing notarizations only within their territorial jurisdiction. By allowing ENPs to provide services across the country, the new rules ensure greater accessibility, particularly for those in remote or underserved areas.

The updated framework enables 3 forms of electronic notarization:
- In-Person Electronic Notarization (both principals and witnesses must be physically present)
- Remote Electronic Notarization (principals and witnesses may connect virtually to ENP via videoconferencing)
- Mixed In-Person and Remote

To enhance security, the E-Notarization Rules implements Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) such as facial recognition, biometrics, and one-time passwords, in compliance with regulations set by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The integrity of the electronic notarial book, or the register showing the chronological record of electronic notarial acts, is also safeguarded against tampering. Additionally, all data stored in the ENFs are protected under the Data Privacy Act.

The E-Notarization Rules applies exclusively to electronic documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) or Portable Document Format Archival (PDF/A). Paper documents with handwritten signatures, notarial wills, and depositions will continue to follow the 2004 Notarial Rules.

A part of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), this initiative aligns with the Supreme Court’s commitment to innovation and expanded access to justice by allowing notarization for electronic documents, including remote notarization through accredited software applications. This reform supplements the traditional mode of notarization under the 2004 Notarial Rules and marks a key milestone in the Court’s ongoing digital transformation.

The E-Notarization Rules takes effect 15 days after its publication on March 9, 2025.

Read the press release in full at https://tinyurl.com/5e9e7h4a.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, Rules on Electronic Notarization, at https://tinyurl.com/55zvmbrf.

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

17/11/2024

Great news! Our website is up. Check out www.lgpvlaw.com

10/11/2024

LEGAL SEPARATION - IS IT WORTH IT? When do you need it?

Legal separation is a lesser-known yet powerful remedy that provides independence and protection without ending the marriage.

But when does it make sense to take this step?

For spouses facing serious challenges but NOT READY or UNABLE due to cultural or religious reasons to pursue annulment, legal separation offers a way to establish personal and financial boundaries while maintaining the legal bond of marriage. In our country, where strong religious or cultural beliefs often discourage annulment, legal separation allows individuals to live independently without dissolving their marriage.

Some clients choose legal separation due to family or societal pressures, wanting to avoid the stigma they believe annulment might carry.

So, again, the question -- why legal separation?

Annulments in the Philippines are both lengthy and costly, with strict legal requirements. Legal separation, while still requiring proof of specific grounds, may be more straightforward and less daunting for some spouses.

Unlike informal separation ("panagbulag"), legal separation offers the backing of court orders. In other words, YOU ARE PROTECTED.

Suppose a husband and wife own a family business and several properties. Through legal separation, a court order or a court-approved agreement can determine who manages or benefits from these assets. For example, if the husband retains control of the business, he may owe a monthly allowance to the wife or a share of the profits. If either spouse fails to uphold this financial arrangement, the court can enforce compliance or impose penalties.

If a couple has young children, the separation agreement can specify who will have primary custody, visitation schedules, and even financial support for the children’s needs. For instance, the mother may have primary custody while the father is required to cover educational expenses and has a designated visitation schedule. If either parent violates these terms—such as denying visitation without cause or failing to provide support—they may face contempt of court charges or other legal repercussions.

AND MANY MORE.

In fact, one unique aspect of legal separation is that it leaves the door open for reconciliation. Since the marriage was never dissolved in legal separation, spouses can simply give love another chance. It’s like hitting “pause” instead of “stop.” (Cool, right?!)

So, if both parties find their way back to each other, they can pick up right where they left off, letting “love win” after all. BUT that’s if it really does!

- Atty. Valdez
LGPV Law Office

06/11/2024

📅 FREE CONSULTATION and FREE NOTARIZATION this Thursday, November 7, 2024, as part of our Law Office Anniversary celebration!

⚖️ Free Consultation Details:
✨Time: 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM
✨Duration: 15 minutes max per client
✨Scope: Limited to ONE legal issue/concern
✨ Note: Free consultation covers basic legal advice only (no document review or drafting).

🎉 FREE Notarization Service:
✍️For simple documents (Personal Data Sheet, Affidavit of Loss, Parental Consent Forms etc.)
✍️Document must be pre-printed
✍️Just bring your valid ID!

First come, first served basis.

05/11/2024

02/11/2024

📅 Here's our schedule for the week! Plus, we're excited to announce FREE CONSULTATION and FREE NOTARIZATION this Thursday, November 7, 2024, as part of our Law Office Anniversary celebration!

⚖️ Free Consultation Details:
✨Time: 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM
✨Duration: 15 minutes max per client
✨Scope: Limited to ONE legal issue/concern
✨ Note: Free consultation covers basic legal advice only (no document review or drafting).

🎉 FREE Notarization Service:
✍️For simple documents (Personal Data Sheet, Affidavit of Loss, Parental Consent Forms etc.)
✍️Document must be pre-printed
✍️Just bring your valid ID!

First come, first served basis.