Jurisprudence

In this case, the Court clarified that theft isn’t limited to the person who literally discovers lost property. Even those who knowingly keep, divide, or misappropriate what isn’t theirs—despite knowing it was merely found—may still be held liable as a “finder in law.”

The Court upheld the presumption of validity of marriage—even when the petitioner later claimed that the person who officiated her wedding was not the judge named in the marriage contract.

When employees are barred from entering their workplace, the question arises: does this amount to dismissal under labor law, or can it be treated as something less than termination? This case explores the boundaries of employer authority, the rights of employees to security of tenure, and how Philippine jurisprudence defines dismissal in the context of workplace access and control.

What happens when a parent, still married to one spouse, enters into another marriage and seeks to have the children from that union legitimated? This case unpacks the boundaries of legitimation under Philippine law.

Infidelity and abandonment are not merely private matters; under the Anti-VAWC Law, they may constitute psychological violence when they result in mental or emotional anguish.

A contract of sale is void if executed by one without ownership or authority to transfer the property, and the issuance of a certificate of title does not cure this defect; moreover, a buyer cannot be deemed an innocent purchaser for value when circumstances on record cast doubt on the seller’s ownership.

If the employee is suffering from any of the occupational diseases or illnesses listed under Section 32(A) of the POEA-SEC, such disease is deemed to be work-related, provided the conditions set therein are satisfied.

There is constructive dismissal where “there is cessation of work because ‘continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay’ and other benefits.

Not all cases of encroachment bring the case within the ambit of accion reivindicatoria, as in this case, where recovery of ownership is not sought. Respondent did not even allege that petitioners disputed her title. Hence, there is no reason for the ownership of the property to be conclusively determined through an accion reivindicatoria.

Generally, to be considered an innocent purchaser for value, the buyer does not have any notice of defect or irregularity as to the right or interest of the seller, and the buyer is without notice that a third party has a claim to the subject property.