Atty. Richard L. Sayson

03/01/2025

Ipinaalala ng Korte Suprema na habang ang mga nagpapahiram ng pera ay maaaring makakuha ng mga ari-arian na ginagamit bilang loan collateral, ang pagmamay-ari ay hindi maaaring awtomatikong ilipat sa kanila, maliban kung may hiwalay na kasunduan.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, kinatigan ng First Division ng Korte Suprema ang paglipat ng pagmamay-ari ng lupang pag-aari ng Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation (Ruby Shelter) sa pinagkakautangan nito na sina Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) at Roberto L . Obiedo (Obiedo). Ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang paglilipat na ito ay batay sa isang may bisang kasunduan at hindi lumalabag sa batas na nagbabawal sa awtomatikong paglilipat ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral.

Ang Ruby Shelter ay humiram ng pera kina Tan at Obiedo, gamit ang ilang mga ari-arian bilang collateral. Nang ang natitirang utang ay umabot sa PHP 95 milyon, ang mga partido ay pumirma sa isang Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) na ibenta ang mga ari-arian nito kina Tan at Obiedo bilang bayad sa utang.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang bisa ng MOA at sinabing kusang pumasok ang Ruby Shelter sa MOA na ibenta ang mga ari-arian kung hindi makapagbayad. Ipinaliwanag din ng Korte na ang MOA ay hindi bumubuo ng pactum commissorium o isang ipinagbabawal na kasunduan sa ilalim ng Article 2088 ng Civil Code. Ang probisyong ito ay nagsasaad na ang isang tagapagpahiram ay hindi maaaring awtomatikong makakuha ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral kung ang nanghihiram ay nabigong magbayad.

Ang pactum commissorium ay nangyayari kapag (1) ang isang ari-arian ay ginamit bilang collateral para sa isang pautang; at (2) ang kasunduan sa pautang ay may kasamang probisyon na awtomatikong naglilipat ng pagmamay-ari ng collateral sa nagpapahiram kung ang nanghihiram ay nabigong magbayad.

Basahin ang buong press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-automatic-transfer-of-collateral-for-loan-repayment-prohibited/

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/217368-ruby-shelter-builders-and-realty-development-corporation-vs-romeo-y-tan-et-al/

03/01/2025

The Supreme Court emphasized that search warrants must clearly define the location to be searched; otherwise, they are invalid for violating the right against unlawful searches and seizures.

Thus, the SC acquitted an accused due to a defective search warrant and its irregular ex*****on.

The case stemmed from a 2017 operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which implemented a search warrant against Lucky Enriquez (Enriquez) to search for and seize dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. The address in the search warrant states, “Informal Settler’s Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.”

PDEA agents, guided by an informant, entered a house where Enriquez was located. Without knocking or announcing their presence, they immediately rushed through the open door, apprehended Enriquez, and seized sachets containing shabu.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Enriquez, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

The SC reversed these rulings, declaring the search warrant invalid. The Constitution requires a valid search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched. This requirement is crucial to prevent enforcing officers from deciding on their own where to search and whom and what to seize.

The SC ruled that the search warrant was too broad and essentially a general warrant, which is prohibited by the Constitution. This lack of detail gave the PDEA agents unlimited power to search the entire compound.

The SC also found that the search warrant was not carried out properly. According to the Rules of Court, government agents must first identify themselves and ask for permission to enter the place they want to search. They can only force their way in if they are denied entry.

Additionally, searches must be made with the lawful occupants of the house as witnesses, or, if they are unavailable, two residents in the same area. In this case, Enriquez was the lawful occupant of the house but was not able to witness the search.

The Decision was from the Supreme Court Second Division written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.

Read the full text of the press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-search-warrants-must-clearly-specify-location-to-be-searched/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/264473-people-of-the-philippines-vs-lucky-enriquez-y-casipi/



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

29/11/2024

❗️❗️❗️

The full implementation of the eFiling Guidelines in trial courts for civil cases takes effect on December 1, 2024.

Under the Guidelines and Rule 13-A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, filing and service of non-initiatory pleadings shall only be made by transmitting them in digital file format through email.

Complaints and initiatory pleadings may be filed personally, by registered mail, or accredited courier but will not be acted upon by the court unless digital copies are emailed within 24 hours from filing.

Full text of the eFiling Guidelines: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10-3-7-sc-11-9-4-sc-re-guidelines-on-submission-of-electronic-copies-of-pleadings-and-other-court-submissions-being-filed-before-the-lower-courts-pursuant-to-the-efficient-use-of-paper-rule-moving-tow/

Full text of Rule 13-A of the Rules of Civil Procedure:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/19-10-20-SC.pdf

Frequently asked questions:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CCL-E-Filing-FAQ-for-Litigants-and-Counsels-Version-3.pdf

Checklist for litigants and counsels:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CCL-E-Filing-Checklist-for-Litigants-and-Counsel-final.pdf