Lubbui Lobas Law Office

04/09/2026

21/08/2026

Before we gather for "The Critical Use of AI: Challenges for the Philippine Legal Profession and the Judiciary," please take note of the following reminders on security, attire, and venue protocols.

📅 20 August 2026 | 3:00 P.M.
📍 En Banc Session Hall, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Baguio Compound

We look forward to welcoming you to this lecture by Acting Chief Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.

21/08/2026

📢 The Office of the Chairperson, Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, informs examinees that the period to download, install, and register Examplify ENDS TODAY at 5:00 p.m.

Examinees who have not yet completed this step must do so before the deadline to ensure access on examination day.

07/08/2026

The (SC) has clarified that a Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) may be issued only in cases involving crimes punishable by a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment, or when the respondent is a foreigner, regardless of the penalty.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that a PHDO cannot be maintained when the crime under investigation does not meet these requirements.

The case arose from a complaint for 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 and violation of 𝘉𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘨. 22 (BP 22) filed against petitioner Faustine Feliz Abad (Abad) in connection with her purchase of airline tickets from respondent GHT Travel and Tours (GHT).

The City Prosecutor found probable cause to charge Abad with two counts of violation of BP 22, but found insufficient evidence to charge her with 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢. Two Informations for BP 22 were then filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.

The prosecution also sought a PHDO against Abad with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), claiming that she was a flight risk. The RTC granted the request.

Abad later sought to have the PHDO lifted. The RTC denied her request, noting, among others, that GHT had appealed the dismissal of the 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 charge to the Secretary of Justice and that Abad was a permanent resident of the United States.

Ruling that the PHDO should have been lifted, the SC cited the Rule on PHDO that it issued on August 7, 2018, which provides that a PHDO may be issued while a criminal complaint is undergoing preliminary investigation when the crime involved carries a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment. It may also be issued against a foreigner regardless of the penalty.

The SC explained that the 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘧𝘢 charge, which could have carried a penalty exceeding six years and one day, was dismissed for lack of probable cause. The only charges filed against Abad were two counts of BP 22 violations, each punishable by imprisonment of 30 days to one year.

Thus, the BP 22 charges did not meet the penalty requirement for the issuance of a PHDO.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=170320.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165691.

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

25/07/2026

Nagpasya ang na nananatiling may bisa ang bentahan ng lupa na magkaibang numero ng lote ang nakasaad sa kasulatan ng bentahan o deed of sale kumpara sa tunay na nabenta, basta’t malinaw na maipapakita ang totoong pinagkasunduan ng mga partido. Dahil dito, maaaring itama ang kasulatan para tumugma sa aktuwal na napagkasunduan ng magkabilang panig.

Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinagtibay ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang bentahan ng isang 491 metro kuwadradong lupain sa Lungsod ng Cebu sa pagitan ng mga mamimiling sina Genara at Felipe Abay, Sr. (mga Abay) at ng mga nagbentang sina Crispin Caballes at mga tagapagmana ni Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (mga Gallardo), sa kabila ng pagkakamali sa nakalagay na numero ng lote sa deed of sale.

Bahagi ang lupang ito ng ari-ariang naiwan ni Margarita Lopez na may siyam na anak, kabilang sina Crispin at Trinidad.

Binisita ng mga Abay ang lugar kasama si Crispin at si Tomas Gallardo, isa sa mga tagapagmana ni Trinidad, bago nila binili ang ari-arian. Sa kanilang pagbisita, ipinakita sa kanila ang mga hangganan ng lupa. Tumulong pa si Tomas sa mga Abay sa pagtatayo ng bakod sa paligid nito.

Tinirahan ng mga Abay ang ari-arian nang humigit-kumulang 20 taon. Naputol lang ang kanilang paninirahan nang pumasok dito ang mga manggagawa ng mag-asawang Jacinto at Chiok Ngo Lim Young (mga Young), sinara ang bakod, at nagtayo ng sarili nilang mga poste.

Nalaman ng mga Abay na isang titulo para sa ari-arian ang naisyu sa pangalan ng mga Young. Dahil dito, naghain sila ng reklamo sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) para maipakansela ang nasabing titulo.

Kinuwestiyon ito ng mga Gallardo at ikinatuwirang ang mga dokumentong iprinisenta ng mga Abay ay tumutukoy sa ibang lote, ang Lot No. 6036-B, at hindi sa loteng kanilang tinitirhan na Lot No. 7. Bagama’t parehong matatagpuan sa iisang lugar ang dalawang lote, hiwalay na ari-arian ang mga ito at hindi magkatabi. Sinuportahan ng mga Young ang panig ng mga Gallardo at pinanindigang sila ay mga mamimili na may mabuting intensyon.

Nagdesisyon ang RTC pabor sa mga Abay, pero binaliktad ang desisyong ng Court of Appeals (CA). Ayon sa CA, ang mga dokumentong iprinisenta ng mga Abay ay nagpapakitang Lot No. 6036-B ang kanilang nabili at hindi ang Lot No. 7 na inangkin at pinaghahawakan nila.

Hindi sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema at iginiit nito ang ang mga naging desisyon nito sa mga naunang kaso na nagpapatibay ng bilihan. Pinahihintulutan nito ang pagtatama ng kasulatan para maipakita ang tunay na kasunduan ng mga panig sa mga pagkakataong nabigo ang deed of sale na tumpak na mailarawan ang lupang nilayon ng magkabilang panig.

Sa ilalim ng Civil Code, maaaring itama ang isang kasulatan nang kapag dahil sa isang pagkakamali hindi nito naipapakita ang tunay na pinagkasunduan ng mga panig.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, ang isang kontrata ay maaaring baguhin o itama kung: (1) nagkasundo ang mga panig sa transaksyon; (2) hindi naipapahayag ng kasulatan ang kanilang tunay na kasunduan; at (3) ang kamalian ay sanhi ng pagkakamali o mistake, panlilinlang o fraud, aksidente, o unfair conduct.

Sa kasong ito, napatunayang umiiral ang lahat ng mga kondisyong ito.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164169

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

25/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

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

24/07/2026

Justice Gaerlan Ponencias in POLITICAL LAW
BAR 2026

DATU PAX ALIS. MANGUDADATU VS THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SHARIFA AKEEL MANGUDADATU, AZEL V. MANGUDADATU, and BAI ALI A. UNTONG
G.R. Nos. 260219 & 260231
GAERLAN, J.

24/07/2026

Justice Gaerlan Ponencias in POLITICAL LAW
BAR 2026

WILSON CARITERO AMAD VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 258448. July 05, 2022
GAERLAN, J.:

24/07/2026

The prosecution must not side with any particular party. It must side with the evidence. Its duty is to seek the truth and ensure that justice is served, not merely to secure a conviction or obtain an acquittal. It is a minister of justice whose primary obligation is to ensure that justice is served by presenting all competent and relevant evidence fairly and objectively.