13 Supreme Court Decisions (June 9,
2025)
Latest Jurisprudence
1.
Foreigner Allowed to Nullify Bigamous Marriage
Case: Gianni de
Munari vs. Thelma Gagui Asprec (G.R. No. 262831)
Summary: Gianni, an Italian, discovered that his
Filipino wife Thelma had married two other men before him, making their
2011 marriage bigamous. He sued in a Philippine court to have his marriage
declared null. The trial court dismissed his case, claiming it had no
jurisdiction since the marriage happened in Italy and suggesting only the
Filipino spouse could file such a case. The Supreme Court reversed that
dismissal, emphasizing that Philippine family courts have jurisdiction
over marriage nullity cases – even if the marriage was celebrated abroad –
and even a foreign spouse can file. The high court noted that if even a
prior spouse (from an earlier marriage) can challenge a bigamous marriage, surely
the second husband – though foreign – can seek justice. They sent the case
back to the trial court to hear the merits.
Why
it matters: This
decision reassures that bigamous marriages won’t stand, and it empowers
innocent spouses (even foreign nationals) to nullify such marriages in
Philippine courts. It upholds fairness – someone duped into a bigamous marriage
can restore their single status and move on with their life. The ruling
underscores that jurisdiction isn’t defeated just because the wedding was
overseas; protecting marriage integrity is a matter of public policy that
Philippine courts will enforce.
2.
Mother Jailed for Child Trafficking and Abuse
Case:
People of the
Philippines vs. XXX (name withheld)
(G.R. No. 234512)
Summary: In a horrifying case, a mother was
found to have offered her two young children (just 8 and 5 years old) to a
foreigner for sexual exploitation in exchange for money. She was charged
with child abuse (under RA 7610) and qualified trafficking in persons
(RA 9208 as amended). The Regional Trial Court convicted her, and the Court
of Appeals affirmed with some modifications. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld
her convictions and punishments, with clarifications. She received reclusion
perpetua (up to 40 years imprisonment) for the child abuse charge, and life
imprisonment plus a ₱2 million fine for human trafficking. The Court agreed
the mother’s own relationship to the victims (being their parent) was an
aggravating factor that qualified the crimes and mandated the maximum
penalties. The SC only adjusted technical details (like properly naming the
offense) but found the evidence of her guilt overwhelming, citing how
she delivered her children to be abused and even coordinated the crime.
Why
it matters: This case
sends a strong message against child abuse and trafficking, especially
by a parent. It shows that the law comes down hardest on those who should be
protectors but instead exploit their children. In everyday life, it
underscores the protection the law affords to minors – ensuring that even a
parent will be severely punished for betraying that sacred trust. It also
highlights that victims’ identities are kept confidential to protect their
privacy.
3.
Cleaning a Title: Old Claim Mark Removed, But Heirs’ Adverse Claim Stays
Case:
Republic of the
Philippines vs. Bella (G.R. No. 260831)
Summary: Bella owned a parcel of land in Cavite
which had a reconstituted title (a title re-issued after the original
was lost in a 1960 fire). Such reconstituted titles carry a notation that
they’re without prejudice to claims not carried over from the lost title. Bella
wanted that encumbrance annotation removed, noting that more than two
years had passed since reissuance and no one claimed any missing interest. She
also asked to cancel an “adverse claim” annotated in 1996 by the prior
sellers. The trial court granted both requests – it cleared Bella’s title. The
government (Republic) opposed, arguing Bella didn’t strictly follow notice
requirements (like publication in the Official Gazette) and that the sellers’
heirs should’ve been notified. The Supreme Court delivered a balanced ruling:
It allowed the removal of the reconstitution notation (since decades had
passed with no claims, and the law lets owners clear such encumbrances after
two years). However, it disallowed removal of the 1996 adverse claim
without proper process. The Court noted that an adverse claim (which signals a
third-party’s interest) can’t be cancelled just because 30 days lapsed – due
process requires a hearing and notice to interested parties (like the heirs of
the original claimants). Because Bella hadn’t impleaded the known heirs or
held a hearing on the validity of that claim, the adverse claim stays on the
title. In short, Bella gets a partially clean title – the old
“reconstituted” caveat is gone, but the heirs’ claim remains until properly
resolved.
Key
takeaways: If your
title was rebuilt after loss, you can eventually remove the “provisional” mark
on it, giving you peace of mind that your title is fully yours. However, any
separate adverse claim by another person is different – even if it seems
stale, it can’t be ignored without giving claimants their day in court.
This protects due process and property rights: anyone asserting an interest
(like heirs of a seller) must be notified and heard before their claim is
erased. For property owners, the case underscores the importance of following
proper notice and hearing procedures when cleaning up titles.
4.
Taxpayer Win: Void Tax Assessment Spares Company ₱18 Million
Case:
Telstar
Manufacturing Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. Nos. 249241-42, etc.)
Summary: Telstar, a company, was assessed by the
BIR for about ₱18 million in alleged tax deficiencies for 2009. Telstar
contested the assessment, arguing the waivers extending the BIR’s time to
assess were invalid and that the Final Assessment Notice lacked a proper
demand for payment. The case went through the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which
initially reduced some amounts but still ruled against Telstar. Ultimately, the
Supreme Court sided with Telstar and canceled the entire tax assessment.
It found that the BIR’s Final Assessment Notice was procedurally defective
– it did not contain a clear demand for a specific amount within a set time, as
required. Such a notice is not a valid assessment at all, and a void
assessment “produces no effect”. Because the formal letter was fatally flawed,
the Court didn’t even need to rule on the waiver issues. It granted
Telstar’s petition, denied the CIR’s petition, reversed the CTA, and declared
all deficiency tax assessments for 2009 null and void. In short, Telstar
was relieved from paying the ₱18 million, and the BIR’s claims were
dropped entirely.
Why
it matters: This
decision is a big win for taxpayers’ rights and due process. It reinforces that
the BIR must strictly follow the law’s procedures when assessing taxes,
including issuing a clear notice of how much to pay and by when. If they don’t,
the assessment can be thrown out. For businesses and ordinary taxpayers, it
highlights the importance of reviewing BIR notices – an unclear or improperly
issued assessment is void and unenforceable. It also shows that even if
you sign extensions (waivers) under protest, courts can still rule in your
favor if basic due process (like a proper demand) wasn’t observed. Ultimately,
it promotes fairness in the tax system: the government must play by the
rules before it can collect.
5.
Acquittal in Drug Case; Knives Not Covered by Gun Ban
Case:
People of the
Philippines vs. Mark Paul Ildefonso
(G.R. No. 249858)
Summary: Mark Ildefonso was arrested one night
in 2013 and faced three charges: (1) Violation of the COMELEC gun ban
(for carrying a knife during an election period), (2) Selling a small packet
of shabu (0.06 gram, under RA 9165 Section 5), and (3) Possessing
another small packet of shabu (0.067 gram, RA 9165 Section 11). He was
convicted on all counts in the trial court, and the Court of Appeals upheld the
convictions (with minor tweaks). The Supreme Court, however, acquitted him
of everything. Why? On the drug charges, the SC found that the prosecution
failed to strictly prove the chain of custody of the drugs – a critical
safeguard in drug cases. The integrity of the evidence was in doubt, so
Ildefonso was given the benefit of the doubt. On the election weapons charge,
the Supreme Court made a significant ruling: ordinary knives (“bladed
instruments”) are not automatically considered “deadly weapons” under
the election gun ban. The Court noted that the COMELEC went beyond the law
by including bladed weapons in its definition of prohibited weapons. It ruled
that COMELEC had no authority to ban knives that people use as tools,
because the law’s intent was to regulate firearms and similar weapons, not
every kitchen knife. In fact, the SC declared the COMELEC resolution void
insofar as it covered bladed instruments. Since Ildefonso’s knife didn’t fall
under a valid ban, he committed no election offense. The upshot: the Supreme
Court reversed the CA, cleared Ildefonso of all charges, and
ordered his immediate release.
Key
takeaways: This case is
a reminder that evidence rules matter – in drug cases, if the police and
prosecution don’t carefully account for the seized drugs at every step, the
case can fall apart. It protects citizens from wrongful conviction due to
sloppy handling of evidence. Also, for the election period weapons ban, the
ruling draws an important line: not every sharp object is illegal to carry
during elections. Ordinary people carrying a work knife or tool during
election time need not fear violating the gun ban, as long as they have it for
legitimate purposes. COMELEC cannot exceed what the law intended – which is to
curb firearms and regulated deadly weapons, not everyday tools. It’s a
win for common sense: the law will not criminalize behavior (like carrying a
pocketknife) without clear authority.
6.
Land Bank vs. Landowner: Botched Auction Overturned
Case:
Land Bank of the
Philippines vs. Suntay (represented by Lubrica) – Execution in Agrarian Case (G.R. No.
268116)
Summary: This arose from a long-running agrarian
land compensation case. Land Bank (a government bank) owed a landowner
(Suntay) compensation for expropriated land. Back in 2011, a final judgment set
the amount, and Land Bank’s obligation was supposed to be paid from the Agrarian
Reform Fund (ARF) (public funds earmarked for land reform). However, things
went awry – instead of using the ARF, agrarian sheriffs levied on Land Bank’s
own assets (specifically millions of shares of Meralco stock owned by Land
Bank) to satisfy the judgment. They auctioned the shares, and a certain Lubrica
ended up with a large portion. Land Bank protested these execution actions as irregular
and unlawful, since by law agrarian awards should be paid from the ARF, not
by grabbing the bank’s corporate assets. The Supreme Court agreed. It noted
that Land Bank’s liability here is as administrator of the ARF, not its own
corporate funds. Seizing Land Bank’s personal assets without determining if
they were part of the ARF “thoroughly disregarded” the law and Land
Bank’s rights. The high court recounted how it had already in 2011
declared the levy of those shares void, yet issues remained because some shares
had been transferred to innocent buyers. In this June 9, 2025 decision, the
Supreme Court granted Land Bank’s petition and delivered sweeping
relief: it quashed and nullified the questionable orders that allowed
the levy and auction of the Meralco shares, restored ownership of those
shares to Land Bank, and affirmed that all cash and stock dividends belong
to Land Bank as if no auction happened. It also ordered the agrarian court to
resume proper proceedings to compute the just compensation (to ensure the
landowner gets paid – but from the right fund). Additionally, the Court took
the extraordinary step of directing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to
investigate the lawyer (a DAR adjudicator) who enabled the irregular execution,
and the DAR to investigate the sheriffs involved.
Why
it matters: For
ordinary people, this case, though complex, underscores a simple principle: government
must follow lawful procedures, and public funds have designated purposes.
If you’re a landowner, it shows the government will still pay what you’re due,
but through proper channels (so that the integrity of public finances is
maintained). For taxpayers, it’s reassuring that the Supreme Court guards the Agrarian
Reform Fund, ensuring it – and not other assets – is used for land
compensation as intended. The decision also demonstrates accountability: court
officers and sheriffs who cut corners or defy final judgments can face
investigation. It’s a lesson in rule of law – even in emotionally
charged cases, shortcuts in executing judgments will be struck down to protect
property rights and public interest.
7.
Double Sale Dilemma: First Buyers Win, Second Sale Void
Case:
Spouses Feliciana
& Angel Cesa (substituted by heirs) vs. Spouses Elisa & David Brucelas,
Spouses Raymundo & Nelia Del Rosario, et al. (G.R. No. 255564)
Summary: This is a classic double sale of
land scenario with a twist. The Montano family owned a large lot in Cavite.
In the mid-1980s, after the patriarch died, his widow (Consolacion) and
daughters (Elisa and Consuelo) agreed to sell the land to Spouses Cesa
(Angel and Feliciana) for an agreed price, and even signed a deed (initially
unnotarized, then a corrected one). The Cesas paid and took possession.
However, the title remained with the sellers, and in 2002 Elisa (one of the
daughters) and her husband David Brucelas sold the same land to Spouses Del
Rosario, who managed to register the title in their names. The Cesas sued
to annul the second sale and reclaim their rights. The trial court sided
with the Cesas – nullifying the Brucelas-to-Del Rosario sale and awarding
damages. But the Court of Appeals reversed, casting doubt on the Cesas’
evidence and even saying the Cesas might not be the proper parties (noting the
deed named their realty corporation as buyer). The Supreme Court came to the
rescue of the first buyers (the Cesas). It granted their petition, reversed
the CA, and reinstated the trial court’s decision in favor of the
Cesas, with minor modifications. The SC held that the second sale to Del
Rosarios was done in bad faith – Elisa and her spouse knew they’d sold
the land before, and the Del Rosarios failed to investigate why the Cesas were
in actual possession of the lot. Because the first sale happened years earlier
and the buyers (Cesa) were in possession, the law (Civil Code Article 1544)
gives the property to the buyer who first took possession in good faith,
which were the Cesas. Thus, the Del Rosario title was ordered canceled and the
2002 deed declared void. The Court also upheld the awards of ₱50k in
exemplary damages and ₱50k moral damages, and ₱200k attorney’s fees
to the Cesas – to recompense the trouble and to punish the sellers’ and second
buyers’ bad faith. (Since Elisa and Consuelo passed away, Elisa’s estate
will shoulder her share of liability.)
Why
it matters: If you buy property, make sure the seller actually owns it – and if
someone else is living there or bought it first, beware. The first buyer who takes possession wins
the dispute in a double-sale, and later buyers and sellers acting in bad
faith will be voided and even penalized. For property owners, it underlines the
importance of registering your purchase promptly to avoid being cheated.
It also illustrates that courts will look at the substance over form – here,
even though the initial contract named the Cesas’ company, the Court still
recognized the Cesas’ interest, refusing to let technicalities defeat justice.
In everyday life, this ruling bolsters confidence that the law protects
rightful owners: you can’t just sell someone else’s land twice and get away
with it. Buyers who ignore red flags (like an occupant on the land) do so at
their peril.
8.
High Court Upholds Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases
Case:
Anthony “Anton” Lo @
“White” vs. People of the Philippines
(G.R. No. 258420)
Summary: This case tackled the contentious issue
of plea bargaining in drug cases. Anton “White” Lo was charged with selling
shabu (a serious offense punishable by life in prison). During trial, he
and a co-accused sought to plead guilty to lesser offenses under the Supreme
Court’s 2018 Plea Bargaining Framework (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC) –
essentially, offering to admit to a minor charge (possession of drug
paraphernalia and use of drugs) in exchange for lighter penalties (a few months
of rehab or imprisonment). The trial court approved the plea deal over
the prosecutor’s objection, convicted them of the lesser charges, and even
granted Lo probation. The DOJ, however, had a Circular (No. 027) instructing
prosecutors not to agree to such pleas for drug sale cases (it preferred
a higher penalty plea). The prosecution went to the Court of Appeals and
succeeded in having the plea bargain nullified – the CA said a plea deal needs
prosecutor’s consent, and that the DOJ Circular wasn’t invalid. Lo elevated the
fight. The Supreme Court’s decision is a landmark win for the accused’s
right to plea bargain under the Supreme Court’s rules. It set aside the
CA’s ruling as to Lo (whose petition remained active). The Court held that judges
can allow plea bargains in drug cases as long as they conform to the Supreme
Court’s framework, even if the prosecutor objects unreasonably. It
effectively declared that the DOJ’s contrary Circular had no power to thwart
the Supreme Court’s rules – the DOJ cannot impose stiffer terms than what
the High Court allows. Bladed through legalese, the SC affirmed that the
Supreme Court has sole authority over procedural rules like plea bargaining.
In Lo’s case, the conditions for a plea were met (tiny quantity of drugs,
willingness to plead to the proper lesser charge), so the plea deal was valid.
The SC reinstated the plea bargain outcome: Lo’s conviction on the
lesser offenses and his probation stood, sparing him a life sentence. (His
co-accused had withdrawn his appeal and will face trial). Notably, the Court
also reaffirmed that prosecutor consent is usually required but cannot
be withheld arbitrarily or against SC-approved guidelines. And since Lo’s plea
was valid, there’s no double jeopardy issue.
Why
it matters: For those
accused of drug offenses (and the justice system at large), this is
significant. It means eligible accused persons can benefit from plea
bargaining (rehabilitation and lighter penalties) even if a prosecutor
objects, as long as the proposal fits the Supreme Court-sanctioned framework.
It encourages swift resolution of minor drug cases, helping unclog
courts and rehabilitate users, rather than throw them in jail for decades.
Importantly, it cements the principle that Supreme Court rules trump
executive issuances in judicial matters – the DOJ cannot override the court
when it comes to court procedures. In everyday terms, it shows a more
compassionate and pragmatic approach to small-time drug cases, and it
highlights our system of checks and balances: the judiciary asserting its
authority to ensure fairness and consistency in how plea deals are handled
nationwide.
9.
Free Patents Over Riverbed Revoked – Land Reverts to Public
Case:
Evelyn Corpuz (heir
of Silvestre Corpuz) vs. Republic/DENR
(G.R. No. 272308)
Summary: In 1978, a man named Silvestre Corpuz
applied for and was granted Free Patents over two big parcels of “land”
(nearly 9.4 hectares) in Ilocos Sur. He got titles, and later sold the land to
Dominador Arquelada, who obtained new titles. It turned out this “land” was
actually the old bed of the Irene River – in other words, part of
a natural riverbed that had shifted. By law, riverbeds are part of the public
domain (inalienable public land). The DENR investigated in 1999 and found
the error/fraud. In 2000, the DENR administratively canceled the free
patents and said it would seek court reversion of the titles. The government
(through the OSG) eventually filed a reversion case in 2018. The trial court
initially partly granted reversion – it wanted only a 8,675 sq. m.
portion reverted (perhaps the portion still river), not the entire area. But
the Court of Appeals in 2023 ruled for full reversion of both lots to the
State. Evelyn Corpuz (Silvestre’s heir) appealed, arguing laches (the State
waited too long) and that maybe not all of the land was river. The Supreme
Court denied her petition and affirmed the CA. It held that the
patents and titles were void from the start because public land like a
riverbed cannot be owned privately. Any misrepresentation by Silvestre in
saying the land wasn’t occupied (when in truth it was a river) nullifies his
claim. The State, on the other hand, cannot lose ownership by laches – there’s
no time-bar against the government in recovering inalienable lands. Thus,
the entire area covered by those free patents was ordered reverted to the
public domain. In short, the Supreme Court confirmed that you can’t
privatize a riverbed by sneaking it into a free patent; such titles will be
cancelled even decades later.
Why
it matters: This
protects public natural resources. If someone somehow obtained a title to what
should be public land (like a river, coastline, or forest reserved land), the
government can and will take it back for the people. For ordinary landowners,
it’s a caution: ensure the land you’re buying isn’t part of a river or
public property, because no amount of paperwork will secure it if it was
wrongly titled. It also highlights the government’s duty to be a steward of the
environment – rivers serve public functions (flood control, ecology) and can’t
be appropriated. Everyday folk benefit because it keeps waterways and similar
lands from being enclosed for private gain. The case is also a lesson that fraud
or error in land grants can be corrected even after many years; the wheels
of justice may turn slowly, but they do turn in favor of the public interest in
such cases.
10.
Foreign Buyer’s Trick Nullified – Alien Can’t Own Philippine Land
Case:
Klaus Peter Neunzig
vs. Rossana Balcom-Doring
(G.R. No. 260983, formerly UDK 17529)
Summary: A German national, Mr. Neunzig, wanted
to buy a piece of land in Davao City, but Philippine law forbids foreigners
from owning land. To get around this, he made an arrangement with a Filipina
friend, Ms. Balcom-Doring. She would purchase the land (from a certain Mr.
Miranda) in her name, but it was really Neunzig’s money – they even signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that she held the property in trust for him and
could only sell with his consent. After the sale, Neunzig took possession of
the property. They further tried to legitimize Neunzig’s occupancy by executing
“lease contracts” where Balcom-Doring appeared as lessor and Neunzig as lessee
– a sham to mask his true ownership. Later, their relationship soured, and
Balcom-Doring filed an unlawful detainer (eviction) case to kick Neunzig
out for non-payment of rent. The local court (MTCC) saw through the ruse and dismissed
the case, saying there was no valid lease and Balcom-Doring had no right to
evict since the whole setup violated the Constitution. The RTC on appeal ruled
in Balcom-Doring’s favor (ordering Neunzig to vacate and pay rent), and the CA
agreed, reasoning that since the contracts were illegal, Neunzig had “unclean
hands” and couldn’t seek relief. The Supreme Court took a firm stance: all
these contracts – the sale to the dummy, the fake lease – are void ab initio
for being part of an illegal scheme for an alien to own land. Because both
Neunzig and Balcom-Doring willingly joined an illegal contract (in pari
delicto), neither can get help from the courts to enforce any part
of that bargain. The SC reinstated the original dismissal of the eviction case
– meaning Balcom-Doring cannot collect rent or possession via the courts.
Furthermore, it forwarded the case to authorities: it notified the OSG to
consider escheating (forfeiting) the land to the State, and the DOJ to
consider criminal charges under the Anti-Dummy Law against both Neunzig and
Balcom-Doring (and even called out the notary who notarized the illegal
contracts). In essence, nobody wins except the law – the property will
likely end up with the government.
Why
it matters: This case
is a stark warning that foreigners cannot use “dummy” arrangements to own
land. Any such scheme (having a Filipino front) is null and void. If you
try it, you risk losing your money and the property. Filipinos who serve
as dummies also risk legal consequences. For ordinary citizens, it’s reassuring
that the constitutional ban on foreign land ownership is enforced: land remains
for Filipinos, and shady backdoor deals won’t be blessed by the courts. It also
shows our courts will not reward either party in an illicit deal – they leave
the schemers as they are, or worse, refer them for prosecution. In practical
terms, if you’re a foreigner wanting to invest in property, the lawful routes (like
long-term lease or condo ownership where allowed) are the only safe paths. Any
shortcut will end in disaster, as this case demonstrates.
11.
Public Funds Disallowed: Officers Liable, Passive Recipients Let Off
Case:
Estrella P. Abasolo,
Remeliza Jovita M. Gabuyo, et al. vs. Commission on Audit (UDK 17895)
Summary: This was about government employees
receiving various allowances and bonuses from the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) in 2009 that the Commission on Audit (COA) later disallowed
(flagged as improper). The COA initially ordered all involved to refund the
amounts. Over years of appeals, some employees (those who simply received the
benefits) were eventually exonerated by COA, but a few who had approved
or certified the payments were still held liable. In a January 2022 COA
ruling, two key officials – Estrella Abasolo (who certified and also
received some allowances) and Remeliza Gabuyo (who certified one
allowance) – were ordered to return substantial amounts, while the passive
recipients were cleared. Abasolo and Gabuyo appealed to the Supreme Court,
arguing it was unfair since some recipients (including four petitioners) had
final COA clearance. The Supreme Court partly granted their petition,
modifying the COA ruling for clarity and fairness. It held that the four
employees who were passive payees and already exonerated by COA must not be
made to repay anything, as that exoneration is final. Meanwhile, Abasolo,
as an approving officer and also a payee, remains solidarily liable
(with any others who were liable) for the disallowed Hazard Pay, Staple Food,
Grocery Allowance, and incentive pay – but not for portions that the passive
recipients don’t have to cover. Gabuyo was found liable only for the
Hazard Pay (which she certified) and likewise only for the net amount after
excluding cleared individuals’ shares. The Court also directed COA to resolve a
minor discrepancy in the records about the exact figure of the Educational
Assistance allowance so the exact refund due can be fixed. In sum, the SC’s
ruling refined accountability: those who merely received the benefits in
good faith and were cleared cannot be forced to return them, but those
who had a hand in authorizing the illegal payments still must refund the
appropriate amounts.
Why
it matters: In
government service, this decision balances accountability with equity.
It follows the evolving doctrine that employees who simply accepted benefits
(thinking they were lawful) and were later cleared should not suffer – this
protects rank-and-file workers from undue hardship when higher-ups approve
something irregular. However, it also underscores that approving officers
are not off the hook; if you certify or approve disallowed expenditures,
you can be made to personally reimburse the government for the loss. For
everyday taxpayers, this is reassuring: there are mechanisms to recover
misspent public funds and to hold specific officials liable rather than
penalizing everyone. It also encourages public officials to be diligent and
follow rules when granting benefits – because acting beyond authority can
hit their own pockets. In short, good faith matters: ordinary payees
in good faith are protected, while those who breached their duty of care bear
the cost.
Stay
Informed, Stay Empowered:
These diverse cases – spanning family law, criminal law, property, taxation,
government accountability, and more – all have real-life impacts on Filipinos.
They teach us our rights and responsibilities in marriage, how the justice
system protects the vulnerable, how property and taxes must be handled
lawfully, and how public officials are held to account. The Supreme Court’s
decisions shape our daily lives, often in unseen ways. To keep up with
decisions like these and understand how they might affect you or your
community, consider subscribing to updates on Philippine legal developments.
An informed citizen is an empowered citizen – the more you know, the better you
can assert your rights and fulfill your duties under the law. Stay tuned for
more updates, and let’s all continue to learn from these landmark rulings!
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
No comments:
Post a Comment