ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

Ejectment: Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry

In the case of Eversley Childs Sanitarium v. Sps. Barbarona, G.R. No. 195814, April 4, 2018, the Supreme Court held that an ejectment case only resolves the issue of who has the better right of possession over the property. The right of possession in this instance refers to actual possession, not legal possession. While a party may later be proven to have the legal right of possession by virtue of ownership, he or she must still institute an ejectment case to be able to dispossess an actual occupant of the property who refuses to vacate.

Legal Redemption: Insights from Hermelina Rama v. Sps. Medardo and Purita Nogra and Sps. Ricardo and Mariles Rama

The explicit requirement of written notice for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code may only be dispensed with upon a showing that the co-owners already had sufficient knowledge of the sale and they were guilty of laches in the exercise of their redemption right. (G.R. No. 219556)

Kinds of Obligations

What is an obligation?

An obligation is defined in the Civil Code as a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do. For every right enjoyed by any person, there is a corresponding obligation on the part of another person to respect such right. For every right enjoyed by any person, there is a corresponding obligation on the part of another person to respect such right.

Types of Estoppel

The doctrine of estoppel provides that an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against its own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon.

The Supreme Court decides: The Supreme Court 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 the case of Anido v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 253527, October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the foreign law that must be proven by a party who seeks the recognition of a divorce decree or judgment must be the law of the country or state that issued it. The applicant must prove the law of the foreign court, office, or tribunal to show that it had competence or jurisdiction to issue the foreign decree or judgment, and that the latter is valid and binding in the country or state from which it originates.