Atty. Erika Therese Ongteco Tavera

What is an abandoned subdivision or condominium?

It refers to a project whose development has not been completed in accordance with the approved development plan despite the lapse of at least ten (10) years from the target date of completion and it appears that said project owner or developer has no intention to complete the project development or, despite diligent effort for at least the last five (5) years, the project owner or developer cannot be located. - RA11201

Send a message to learn more

God bless to all future lawyers! May you always be reminded of your purpose in the society and role in the administration of justice. Claim the DOT!

You have done your best - now, rest and enjoy! Have fun! ❤️

In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of the court depends on the amount of the claim. But, where the primary issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of the principal relief sought, such are actions whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence cognizable by the RTCs.”
— Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry (2017)

📌What are the remedies of buyers under Maceda Law?

Buyers Who Have Paid At Least Two Years of Installments:

a. BUYERs are entitled to a grace period of one month for every year of installment payments made.In case of cancellation, the buyer is entitled to a refund of 50% of total payments made, plus an additional 5% per year after five years, up to a maximum of 90% refund.

Buyers Who Have Paid Less Than Two Years of Installments:

a. BUYERs are entitled to a grace period of at least 60 days from the date the installment became due.

NOTE: If the buyer fails to pay within the grace period, the seller may cancel the contract after 30 days from receipt by the buyer of a notarial notice of cancellation.

JURISPRUDENCE:

“The phrase ‘at least two years of installments’ refers to value and time. It does not only refer to the period when the buyer has been making payments, with total disregard for the value that the buyer has actually conveyed. It refers to the proportionate value of the installments made, as well as payments having been made for at least two (2) years.”
— Orbe v. Filinvest Land, Inc. (2017)

In breach of contract cases, if a party presents a quotation for repair but has not yet paid the amount, the courts may award temperate damages. This is because the existence of pecuniary loss is established, but the exact amount cannot be proven with certainty. The amount of temperate damages is left to the court’s discretion, provided it is reasonable and falls between nominal and compensatory damages, as supported by both the Civil Code and Supreme Court jurisprudence

(Tan, et al. v. OMC Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 190521 (2011); Dueñas v. Guce-Africa, G.R. No. 165679 (2009); Meralco v. Yu, G.R. No. 255038 (2023))

Calendar of Activities for Barangay and SK elections. 🗓

What is the unavailable child doctrine?

The conditions sine qua non for a valid grant of an easement of right of way are: (a) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables without an adequate outlet to a public highway; (b) the dominant estate is willing to pay the proper indemnity; (c) the isolation was not due to the acts of the dominant estate; and, (d) the right of way being claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate."

— Quimen v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112331 (1996)

When petitioner married her husband, she did not change her but only her civil status. Neither was she required to secure judicial authority to use the surname of her husband after the marriage as no law requires it.

[Yasin v. Shari'a District Court, G.R. No. 94986, February 23, 1995]

Jurisdictional Requirements in Annulment and Nullity Cases.

SC Rules in Favor of Dismissed Lazada Riders |

When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, granting the petition of Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines, Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (“petitioners”). The Petition challenged the rulings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals which found that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (“Lazada”).

The Court ordered Lazada to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions as Lazada riders, with full backwages computed from the time of dismissal up to the time of actual reinstatement. The case was also ordered remanded to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the total monetary benefits due the petitioners.

In ruling in favor of the petitioners, the Supreme Court found that Lazada failed to discharge its burden of proving that the former were independent contractors rather than regular employees.

The Court found that all four factors in the four-fold test were present. First, petitioners were directly employed by Lazada as evidenced by the Contracts they signed. Second, as indicated in the Contract, they received their salaries from Lazada which paid each of them the amount of P1,200.00 for each day of service. Third, Lazada had the power to dismiss the petitioners. In their contract, Lazada could immediately terminate the agreement if there was a breach of material provisions of the Contract. Finally, Lazada had control over the means and methods of the performance of the work of the petitioners, as reflected in the way they carried out their work. Lazada required the accomplishment of a route sheet which kept track of the arrival, departure, and unloading time of the items. The petitioners also risked a penalty of P500.00 if an item was lost, on top of its actual value. They were also required to submit trip tickets and incident reports to Lazada.

In addition, the Court held that the services performed by the petitioners were integral to Lazada’s business, with the delivery of items clearly integrated in the services offered by Lazada. The Court also found that the petitioners were dependent on Lazada for their continued employment in this line of business since they were hired by Lazada directly after being previously engaged by a third-party contractor to provide services for Lazada. This, held the Court, shows that the petitioners were economically dependent on Lazada for their livelihood.

As to the provision in the Contract which expressly states that there is no employer-employee relationship, the Court ruled that “protection of the law afforded to labor precedes over the nomenclature and stipulations of the Contract…Thus, it is patently erroneous for the labor tribunals to reject an employer-employee relationship simply because the Contract stipulates that this relationship does not exist.”

Read the case digest at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32516/ and the decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32478/.

💯