Cagampang, Amores & Amores Law Office

The (SC) has reiterated that banks may be held liable for moral damages suffered by depositors due to negligence, even if there is no proof of bad faith or malice.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ordered Banco de Oro (BDO) to pay Remedios and Angelita Antonino (Antoninos) the proceeds of their time deposit, including PHP 100,000 in moral damages.

The Antoninos, who are U.S. green card holders living abroad, made three time deposit placements totaling over USD 150,000 at BDO’s San Lorenzo Branch in Makati City (BDO San Lorenzo). They had an arrangement with the branch manager that if the deposits were not withdrawn at maturity, they would automatically roll over into interest-bearing savings accounts. The time deposit certificates (TDCs) were not redeemed and were stored in a Banco Filipino deposit box for safekeeping.

Later, Banco Filipino declared bankruptcy and was taken over by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). It took the Antoninos some time to retrieve their TDCs from the PDIC.
BDO San Lorenzo then ceased operations and closed down without notifying the Antoninos, who only discovered the closure when they tried to withdraw their investments.

They sent several demand letters to BDO, but the bank claimed the deposits had already been withdrawn, citing a demand draft allegedly signed by Angelita. Angelita denied signing the document.

The Antoninos filed a complaint against BDO seeking payment of their time deposit placements.

Ruling in favor of the Antoninos, the SC cited Section 9 of BDO’s terms and conditions for time deposit placements, which requires the surrender of TDCs when withdrawing deposits. Since the Antoninos still had the certificates, the SC concluded that the funds were not withdrawn.

The SC noted that the PNP expert said the signature on the demand draft was likely forged. Immigration and passport records also showed Angelita could not have been in the country to sign the draft. Further, BDO failed to verify the identity of the person who withdrew the funds.

The SC held that these lapses showed BDO’s failure to exercise the required diligence, especially given the large amount involved.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152203.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152187.

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

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/.

The (SC) has reiterated that the children remain legitimate even if their parents’ marriage is later declared null and void due to psychological incapacity.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division modified the ruling of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that declared a child illegitimate following the nullity of her parents’ marriage.

The child was born several months before the couple got married. During the marriage, the wife experienced physical, emotional, and verbal abuse from her husband, who himself struggled with alcohol addiction, gambling, and infidelity.

This prompted the wife to file a petition to nullify their marriage, which the RTC granted, declaring the marriage void due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

However, the RTC also declared their child illegitimate since she was born before their marriage, and her birth certificate did not show she had been legitimated.

The SC affirmed that the marriage was void, but ruled that the child remains legitimate.

The general rule is that when a marriage is nullified, the child is considered illegitimate from the time they were conceived.

However, the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 allows exceptions, such as when the marriage is nullified due to psychological incapacity. This applies whether the child was born before or during the marriage.

The SC emphasized that once a child is legitimated under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, there is no legal basis for changing their status back to illegitimate. Allowing this would go against the law’s intent to protect the child’s best interests.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4yrkc82r.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/c673ywxs.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://tinyurl.com/mrx3swc7.

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

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/.

The Supreme Court has reiterated that disciplining children, even if it results in physical injuries, does not automatically amount to child abuse. For such to be considered abuse, there must be clear intent to harm a child’s dignity.

This was the ruling of the Court in a Decision upholding the conviction of a father for child abuse after subjecting his 12-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son to violent and excessive discipline.

Under Section 3(b) of RA 7610, or the 𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵, any act that debases, degrades, or demeans a child’s dignity is considered child abuse.

The Supreme Court ruled that the father’s actions went beyond reasonable discipline, 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.

The Court emphasized that while parents have the right to discipline their children, such measures must not be violent, excessive, or disproportionate to their misbehavior.

The Court also noted that without the clear intent to harm a child’s dignity, the offender cannot be held liable for child abuse but can be charged with other crimes under the Revised Penal Code.

The Decision is from the Second Division of the Supreme Court, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-excessive-discipline-that-harms-a-childs-dignity-is-child-abuse/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/268457- # # #-vs-people-of-the-philippines/.



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

The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has approved the Rule on Family Mediation (Rule) in a resolution dated November 5, 2024 in A.M. No. 24-02-06-SC. This initiative aims to address the emerging need for family mediation, both domestic and international, enhance the efficiency of family courts, reduce court backlogs, and promote the best interests of the child. The Rule also introduces innovations in dealing with family cases.

The Rule describes family mediation as a process in which a mediator, acting as an impartial third party, facilitates the resolution of family disputes and helps the parties in reaching voluntary agreements.

Family mediation, a non-adversarial process, should include children and give them a chance to share their thoughts on issues that impact them. The process must focus on what is best for the child and the family.

The Rule is limited to suits between spouses; parents and children; other ascendants and descendants; siblings; relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity (by blood) or affinity (by marriage); and parties in a common-law, dating or sexual relationship, former or present.

The Rule took effect 15 calendar days after publication. It was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December 14, 2024.

Following the Rule’s approval, the Committee, together with the Philippine Judicial Academy, shall prepare for the Application, Training, and Accreditation of Family Mediators.

Read the full text of the Press Release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-approves-rule-on-family-mediation/

Read the full text of the Resolution: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/24-02-06-sc-the-rule-on-family-mediation/



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