Family Court, Branch 7, Palayan City

Family Court, Branch 7, Palayan City 2nd Floor, Government Bldg., Business Hub, Brgy. Singalat, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija

27/10/2023

SC: Law Cannot Alter Blood Relationships

While the law may declare who are legitimate children, it cannot alter blood relationships.

Thus held the Supreme Court, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by James Cua Ko. The petition challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) denial of Ko’s Petition for Judicial Approval of Voluntary Recognition of a Minor Natural Child.

The case involved a petition by James Cua Ko to recognize a minor child, Jamie Shaye, whose birth certificate indicated him as the father. Jamie Shaye was born during a marriage between Shalimar Abellera and Kerwin Cruz Par. The court upheld the presumption of legitimacy, as provided by Article 164 of the Family Code, which considers children born during a valid marriage as legitimate for their best interest. Additionally, Article 170 of the Family Code stipulates that only certain individuals, primarily the husband, can challenge a child's legitimacy directly.

While James Cua Ko's petition was denied due to his lack of standing under the law, the Supreme Court clarified that Jamie Shaye still has the right to establish her filiation to him if she chooses to do so. The court acknowledged the complexity between legitimacy, which is a civil status established by marriage, and filiation, which is the biological relationship. It stressed that children born during a valid marriage but not necessarily to their biological parents may have doubts about their filiation and identity. Consequently, the law allows such children to establish their filiation, and this choice should ultimately belong to the child.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-law-cannot-alter-blood-relationships/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/210984-jame-cua-ko-vs-republic-of-the-philippines/.

27/10/2023

SC: Foreign Banks May Not Own Land, But May Possess Mortgaged Properties, Subject to Conditions |

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, denied the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by 4E Steel Builders Corporation (4E Steel) and Spouses Filomeno and Virginia Ecraela (Spouses Ecraela) and Maybank Philippines, Inc. (Maybank). The petitions assailed the issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had annulled the foreclosure sale and cancelled the registration of parcels of land in favor of Maybank and ordered Spouses Ecraela to pay Maybank their total loan obligation.

In this case, Maybank, a foreign bank, executed a Credit Agreement in 1999 with 4E Steel, securing it with a mortgage on five parcels of land owned by the Spouses Ecraela. Subsequently, Maybank initiated a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of the Mortgaged Properties in 2003, leading to a foreclosure sale in which Maybank emerged as the highest bidder. This sale was later ruled void by the Court as, at the time, Maybank was ineligible to participate in the foreclosure sale, per Republic Act No. 4882, as the majority of its capital stock was owned and controlled by foreign nationals.

The Court's decision emphasized that the legality of Maybank's foreclosure depended on the law in effect at the time, which was RA 4882, not the more recent RA 10641. Under RA 4882, a mortgagee prohibited from acquiring lands could still possess the property for five years post-default but was not allowed to participate in a foreclosure sale. As a result, Maybank's acquisition of the properties was declared void.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-foreign-banks-may-not-own-land-but-may-possess-mortgaged-properties-subject-to-conditions/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/230013-230100-4e-steel-builders-corporation-and-spouses-filomeno-g-ecraela-virginia-ecraela-vs-maybank-philippines-inc-and-the-sheriff-of-the-city-of-caloocan-maybank-philippines-inc-vs/.

23/10/2023
23/10/2023

SC: For Online Libel, Courts May Impose Alternative Penalty of Fine Instead of Imprisonment |

A court may sentence an accused found guilty of online libel to payment of fine only, rather than imprisonment.

Thus held the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., as it denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines against Jomerito S. Soliman. The petition claimed that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting Soliman for online libel and sentencing him to pay a fine of PhP50,000.

In 2018, Soliman faced charges for online libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175) for a Facebook post criticizing Waldo R. Carpio, then Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed a fine of PhP50,000, citing Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008. Soliman paid the fine and did not appeal his conviction. However, the Office of the Solicitor General filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, alleging an abuse of discretion by the RTC for imposing a fine instead of imprisonment.

Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act imposes upon online libel, or libel committed through information and communication technologies, a penalty that is one degree higher than ‘traditional’ libel, or libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Under the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, the penalty for traditional libel is “prision correcional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from PhP40,000 to PhP1,200,000, or both.”

The Court ruled that the RPC recognizes that the penalty of fine may be imposed as a single or alternative penalty for libel, as evident in the RPC’s “plain use of the disjunctive word ‘or’ between the term of imprisonment and fine, such word signaling disassociation or independence between the two words.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-for-online-libel-courts-may-impose-alternative-penalty-of-fine-instead-of-imprisonment/.

Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/256700-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jomerito-s-soliman/. Read the Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/256700-concurring-opinion-chief-justice-alexander-g-gesmundo/ and the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/256700-separate-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/.

16/10/2023

SC: Theory on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome Can Help in Determining Credibility of Child R**e Victims |

“We may have to adjust our perspective and try to see things from the eyes of child victims. Actions which we commonly see as strange and inconsistent to the norm may actually be seen by victims as the only expected recourse or way out for them.”

Thus held the Court’s First Division, in a Decision penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, which dismissed the appeal by accused ###. The Court affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting ### with three counts of Qualified R**e.

The Court also dismissed the arguments of ### challenging the testimonies of the victims for being “illogical” or contrary to “normal behavior.”

### argued that AAA should have shouted or made some noise when she was being r***d since her siblings were sleeping in the same room, and that AAA should have avoided being left alone with ###. As for BBB, ### insisted that during the second incident of r**e, BBB should have already known that ### had ill intentions when she was told by ###, who was then only in his underwear, to enter the house. According to ###, the normal human reaction would be to run away instead of following him.

The Court found ###’s arguments unacceptable, underscoring that ### is “in no place to question the responses of AAA and BBB to the traumatic stimuli he himself created.”

The Court proceeded to apply the theory on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) as a model for understanding why the behavior of children who have been sexually abused may seem strange to adults.

Under CSAAS, there are five stages:
(1) The first stage, described as ‘secrecy,’ was explained in terms of both what an abuser does and why the child keeps the matter secret because of embarrassment or shame, ‘sometimes enforced’ by the adult telling the child to keep it secret or suggesting negative consequences if it is revealed.
(2) The second stage is ‘helplessness’ or the absence of power a child has in a relationship with a parental figure or trusted adult.
(3) The third stage is ‘entrapment’ and ‘accommodation’ which happen when the child fails to seek protection.
(4) The stage of ‘delayed disclosure’ which was opined to have the tendency to be delayed because of the child’s fear, shame, or emotional confusion.
(5) The final stage called ‘retraction,’ which was said to involve the child’s denial that the abuse has occurred.

The High Court noted that select courts in the United States admit expert testimony on CSAAS for a limited purpose of “disabusing the mind of common misconceptions it might have about how child victims react to sexual abuse. It is often used to rehabilitate the credibility of the witness when the abuser suggests that the child’s conduct is inconsistent with the testimony about molestation.”

The Court also held that countless in**stuous r**e cases come before the courts and the defense often attacks the credibility of the victims based on their ‘inconsistent’ responses to what is ‘normal.’ “This is not only diabolical but absurd as well,’ held the Court, adding, “There is a need to correct our minds that these are not actually strange nor inconsistent but the normal course of action on the part of children who are victims of sexual abuse.”

The Court further ruled that “individual differences dictate that there is no singular response when a person encounters a certain situation, especially when involving an extremely traumatic experience such as r**e committed by one’s own father.”

As to AAA and BBB’s “silence”, the Court held that r**e victims’ actions are oftentimes influenced by fear rather than by reason, with the perpetrator hoping to build a climate of extreme psychological terror that numbs the victim into silence and submissiveness. “[I]ncestuous r**e further magnifies this terror, for the perpetrator in these cases, such as the victim’s father, is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim. Moreover, in in**st, access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship, magnifying the sense of helplessness and the degree of fear.”

The Court thus imposed on ### the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He was also ordered to pay AAA PhP600,000 and BBB PhP300,000 in damages.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-theory-on-child-sexual-abuse-accommodation-syndrome-can-help-in-determining-credibility-of-child-r**e-victims/.
Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/263227-people-of-the-philippines-vs-###/.

16/10/2023

The Supreme Court has ordered the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to pay a man who won a Lotto 6/42 draw, but whose ticket was partially blackened with a flat iron.

In a 17-page Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the PCSO which sought to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan, Batangas in Civil Case No. 5353. The said RTC Decision ordered the PCSO to pay respondent Antonio F. Mendoza (Mendoza) the amount of P12,391,600.00 as payment for the Lotto 6/42 jackpot prize.

The Supreme Court, in deciding in Mendoza’s favor, held that the PCSO Amended Games and Rules and Regulations for the Lotto 6/42 (PCSO Rules), which provides the rights and obligations of both the sweepstakes office and bettors such as Mendoza, are ambiguous and susceptible to two reasonable alternative interpretations.

The Court reviewed the nature of the game of lotto as a game of chance duly authorized under Republic Act No. 1169, as amended. Citing Article I of the PCSO Rules, the Court noted that there is no reference to a “winning ticket” in the said rules. At most, a ticket was only defined by the PCSO Rules as “produced by a terminal confirming the selection made by the customer.”

“Stated otherwise, the ticket is only proof of the fact that the bettor selected the winning ticket combination,” held the Court, as it found that the CA did not err in finding that it is the act of selecting the winning combination that entitles a bettor to the corresponding prize.

The Court held that the circumstances surrounding the fact that Mendoza bet in the eventual winning numbers of the lotto were clearly established. Noting that both the RTC and the CA characterized the pieces of evidence presented by Mendoza as secondary evidence, the Court explained that secondary evidence may be resorted to when the original document is unavailable.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-to-pcso-pay-p12-39m-to-lotto-winner-with-partially-burned-ticket/. Read the Decision in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257849-philippine-charity-sweepstakes-office-vs-antonio-f-mendoza/.

18/09/2023

By The Numbers: As of 12:00 noon, a total of 10,404 examinees are currently taking the 2023 Bar Examinations.

18/09/2023

The Supreme Court, through the Office of the 2023 Bar Chair, today announced that a total of 10,816 candidates are expected to take the 2023 Bar Examinations, which will be held on September 17, 20, and 24.

Of the 10,816, 5,832 will be taking the Bar Examinations for the first time, while 4,984 will be taking the same for at least the second time.

An estimated number of 2,571 Bar personnel are to be deployed nationwide to the National Headquarters and 14 Local Testing Centers (LTCs), all set to welcome the 2023 Bar Examinees and ensure the smooth conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations. This number includes Court officials; Judges; numerous personnel from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, and First- and Second Level Courts; and lawyers in the government and private practice.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10816-candidates-to-take-2023-bar-exams/.

Address

2nd Floor, Government Bldg. , Business Hub, Brgy. Singalat
Palayan City
3132

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Family Court, Branch 7, Palayan City posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Family Court, Branch 7, Palayan City:

Share