Racuya-Cababa Notary Public & Legal Services

30/05/2026

Baguio sess ✅

20/11/2025

03/11/2025

03/11/2025

Thank you for the trust my Ma’am Sheng and Sirs 😊

24/10/2025

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 They had an arrangement with the branch manager that if the deposits were not withdrawn at maturity, they would automatically roll over into interest-bearing savings accounts.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They sent several demand letters to BDO, but the bank claimed the deposits had already been withdrawn, citing a demand draft allegedly signed by Angelita.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 Since the Antoninos still had the certificates, the SC concluded that the funds were not withdrawn.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/.

22/10/2025

21/10/2025

Even if you don’t feel like moving!

Get moving.

21/10/2025

Binigyang-diin ng na karaniwang walang bisa ang kasal na pinangasiwaan ng isang taong walang legal na awtoridad puwera na lang kung tapat na naniniwala ang isa o parehong mag-asawa na may awtoridad ang tao na nagsagawa ng kanilang kasal.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez bago siya nagretiro, ibinasura ng Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petition for nullity of marriage na inihain ng isang misis na nagsasabing hindi isang hukom ang taong nangasiwa sa kanyang kasal gaya ng kanyang pinaniniwalaan.

Ikinasal ang mag-asawa sa Municipal Hall ng Tarlac City, Tarlac at nakasaad sa kanilang marriage contract na si Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia) ang solemnizing officer.

Gayunpaman, makalipas ang mahigit 20 taon, iginiit ng abogado ng misis na hindi si Judge De Gracia ang lalaki sa kanilang mga larawan sa kasal kundi si Rosalio Florendo na isang kapwa miyembro ng Tarlac City Rotary Club.

Ito ang naging dahilan para maghain ng petisyon ang babae sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) para ideklarang walang bisa ang kasal dahil sa kawalan ng awtoridad ng opisyal na nagkasal sa kanila.

Sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema, nabigo ang asawa na patunayan na walang awtoridad ang opisyal. Naipakita sa sertipiko ng kasal na noo’y nanunungkulan na hukom na may hurisdiksyon ng Tarlac City at may legal na awtoridad na magsagawa ng kasal sa ilalim ng Family Code si Judge De Gracia.

Binanggit ng Korte Suprema ang Article 3 ng Family Code (FC) na nagsasabing ang awtoridad ng solemnizing officer ang isa sa mga pormal na kinakailangan ng isang kasal na may bisa. Samantala, binibigyan ng Article 7 ng FC ang mga hukom sa kanilang hurisdiksyon ng nasabing awtoridad. Walang bisa ang kasal na ginawa ng isang tao na walang ganoong awtoridad sa ilalim ng Articles 4 and 35(2) ng FC maliban kung naniniwala in good faith ang isa o parehong partido na awtorisado ang opisyal na nagkasal kung saan may bisa pa rin ang kasal.

Bagamat nagsabi ang babae na hindi si Judge De Gracia ang nagkasal sa kanila, tinukoy ng Korte Suprema na walang ipinakitang ebidensiya para matukoy si Judge De Gracia o si Florendo.

Binigyang-diin din ng Korte Suprema na dapat na igalang ang legal na presumption pabor sa marriage contract na nagsasaad ng awtoridad ng solemnizing officer kung walang malinaw at matibay na ebidensya na kumukontra dito.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153254.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153241.

Basahin ang Hindi Sumasang-ayon na Opinyon ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/267998-dissenting-opinion-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

21/10/2025

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/.