Philippine Supreme Court Public Information Office

Paano ang proseso ng pagpapiyansa? Panoorin ang buong video: youtu.be/Nu7eMWaNwUU

Court operations in some areas in the Philippines are suspended on Thursday, November 12, 2026 (except as otherwise indicated). Visit our Facebook page for full copies of memoranda: NCJR-A - 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐳𝐮𝐞𝐥𝐚 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐲 - Founding Anniversary Judicial Region (JR) 1 - 𝐌𝐓𝐂, 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐂𝐓𝐂, 𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞-𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨, 𝐈𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐫 - power interruption JR 4-A - 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐚, 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐳𝐨𝐧 - 444th Founding Anniversary - 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐋𝐮𝐢𝐬, 𝐁𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐬 - power interruption - 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐚𝐚𝐥, 𝐁𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐬 - power interruption Please refer to the memos for additional details. #SCPhWalangPasok #SupremeCourtPH

The public is advised of the schedule of livestreaming of the 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐬 of the following 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 projects: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘝𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘜𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘪𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 (𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚) 𝘌𝘹𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘳, 𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 - December 15, 2026, 2:00 P.M. 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘌𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘜𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 - December 15, 2026, 2:00 P.M. 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘝𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘜𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘪𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 (𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚𝘖) 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭 - December 15, 2026, 2:00 P.M. 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘪𝘹 𝘔𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘝𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘜𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 (𝘙𝘦𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨) 𝘗𝘏𝘗 12,090,798.00 - December 15, 2026, 2:00 P.M. The Opening of Bids will be streamed live via YouTube at: youtube.com/@BAC-GSforSC2026 VISIT sc.judiciary.gov.ph/bids-and… for more information.

Nilinaw ng #KorteSuprema na anuman ang batas na nagpaparusa sa isang krimen, karaniwang itinuturing itong 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘦 — nangangahulugang kailangang patunayan ang kriminal na pakay (𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵) bago hatulan ang akusado. Bukod dito, sa krimen ng 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘩, hindi maaaring hatulan nang magkahiwalay ang isang tao sa ilalim ng dalawang batas para sa parehong gawa ng maling pagpaparehistro ng kapanganakan ng isang bata. Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, pinawalang-sala ng Korte Suprema 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 si Benito A. Somo sa mga kasong simulation of birth sa ilalim ng Article 347 ng 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (RPC) at Section 21(b) ng Republic Act No. 8552 o 𝘋𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘈𝘥𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1998. Ang 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘩 ay ang maling pagpaparehistro sa isang bata bilang tunay na anak ng isang taong hindi naman niya 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵. Dahil dito, maaaring mawala sa bata ang kanyang tunay na pagkakakilanlan at katayuan. Kinasuhan si Somo dahil sa pagpaparehistro ng ikalawang sertipiko ng kapanganakan para sa kanyang apo, kung saan siya at ang kanyang asawa ang nakalista na magulang. Nauna nang nagbigay ng pahintulot na nasa kasulatan ang biological na ama ng bata na gumagamit ng dalawang magkaibang pangalan sa ganitong kaayusan para maiwasan ang pagkalito sa pagkakakilanlan ng kanyang anak. Ginamit ang ikalawang sertipiko ng kapanganakan sa pagpapatala ng bata sa paaralan at pagkuha nito ng pasaporte. Parehong napatunayan ng Regional Trial Court at Court of Appeals na guilty si Somo sa dalawang magkakahiwalay na krimen sa ilalim ng RPC at RA 8552. Pero ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na ang Article 347 ng RPC at Section 21(b) ng RA 8552 ay kapwa nagpaparusa sa iisang krimen lang. Bagama’t pinarurusahan ng RPC ang 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘩, hindi nito tinutukoy ang depinisyon ng krimen o kung paano ito isinasagawa. Kalaunan, nilinaw ng RA 8552 ang krimen sa pamamagitan ng pagtukoy dito bilang pakikialam o pagbabago sa talaan ng kapanganakan ng isang bata sa 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺. Ayon sa Korte Suprema, hindi lumikha ang RA 8552 ng panibagong krimen. Sa halip, nilinaw lamang nito ang isang krimeng dati nang pinarurusahan sa ilalim ng RPC. Hindi maaaring kasuhan o parusahan nang dalawang beses ang isang tao para sa iisang krimen. Sa kasong ito, nalaman ng SC na bagama’t naitatag ang maling pagpaparehistro, nabigo ang prosekusyon na patunayan ang kriminal na pakay o 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. Sinabi ng Korte na nanatiling buo ang orihinal na birth certificate ng bata na nagpangalan sa kanyang biological parents. Pinahintulutan din ng 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 na ama ng bata ang pag-aayos, habang si Somo ay nagsampa ng petisyon para sa pag-aampon at pagwawasto ng talaan ng kapanganakan. Basahin ang 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 sa sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17649…. Basahin ang Desisyon sa sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17642…. Basahin ang 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘖𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17645…. Basahin ang 𝘚𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘖𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier ni sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17647…. Basahin ang 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘖𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 ni Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17647…. Basahin ang 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘖𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17648…. Sumunod sa 𝘊𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 ng SC PIO: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a…. #SupremeCourtPH #SCphTranslations

The #SupremeCourtPH has clarified that crimes, regardless of which law punishes them, are generally 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘦—meaning, proof of criminal intent is required before conviction can be secured. Moreover, in the crime of simulation of birth, a person cannot be separately convicted under two laws for the same act of falsely registering a child’s birth.             In a Decision written by SC Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 acquitted Benito A. Somo of simulation of birth under Article 347 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (RPC) and Section 21(b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8552, or the 𝘋𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘈𝘥𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1998.   Simulation of birth involves falsely registering a child as the biological child of someone who is not the child’s actual parent, causing the child to lose their true identity and status.   Somo was charged with registering a second birth certificate for his grandson, naming himself and his wife as the child’s parents.   The child’s biological father, who used two different names, had earlier authorized the arrangement in writing to avoid confusion over his son’s identity. The second birth certificate was used for the child’s school enrollment and passport. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both found Somo guilty of two separate crimes under the RPC and RA 8552 but the SC explained that Article 347 of the RPC and Section 21 (b) of RA 8552 punish the same crime.   While the RPC penalizes simulation of birth, it does not define the offense or specify how it is committed.  RA 8552 later clarified the offense by defining simulation of birth as tampering with a child’s birth record in the civil registry.   The SC held that RA 8552 did not create a separate crime but merely clarified an offense already punishable under the RPC. A person cannot be prosecuted or punished twice for the same offense. In Somo’s case, both charges arose from the same birth certificate, false registration, and claim of parentage.  The SC aso held that while simulating birth is inherently wrong because it affect's a child's legal identity, family relationships, and constitutional rights, merely registering a false birth certificate is not enough to establish criminal liability. The prosecution must also prove that the accused intended to cause the child to lose their true identity and status. In this case, the SC found that although the false registration was established, the prosecution failed to prove criminal intent. The SC noted that the child’s original birth certificate naming his biological parents remained intact. The child’s biological father had also authorized the arrangement, while Somo later filed a petition for adoption and correction of the birth record. Read the full text of the Press Release at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17649…. Read the full text of the Decision at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17642…. Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17645…. Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17647…. Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17647…. Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17648…. Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a….

Nilinaw ng #KorteSuprema ang mga remedyo na maaaring gamitin ng mga nangutang na naremata o na-foreclose ang ari-arian. Maaaring kuwestiyunin ng mga nangutang ang pagpapalabas ng writ of possession o ang bisa ng extrajudicial foreclosure. Gayunman, ang mga remedyo na ito, kabilang ang paghahain ng apela, ay hindi awtomatikong nakapipigil sa nakabili na angkinin at okupahan ang ari-arian. Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, isinantabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyon ng mag-asawang Anthony at Ma. Fatima An at pinagtibay ang pagpapalabas ng writ of possession pabor sa Philippine National Bank (PNB). Nangutang ang mag-asawa ng PHP 2 milyon at ginawang kolateral ang kanilang ari-arian. Nang hindi mabayaran ng mag-asawa ang utang, isinailalim ng PNB sa extrajudicial foreclosure ang sangla at ipinagbili ang ari-arian sa isang pampublikong subasta. Bilang pinakamataas na bidder, nakuha ng PNB ang ari-arian matapos mabigong tubusin ito ng mag-asawa sa loob ng isang taong palugit na itinakda ng batas (redemption period). Nang tumangging iwanan ng mag-asawa ang ari-arian, hiniling ng PNB sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) na magpalabas ng writ of possession, o utos ng hukuman na nagpapahintulot sa PNB na angkinin at okupahan ang ari-arian. Iginiit ng mag-asawa na regular silang nagbabayad ng kanilang utang at hindi sila naabisuhan tungkol sa foreclosure sale. Tinangka nilang tubusin ang ari-arian pero tumanggi ang PNB at sinabing tinalikuran na umano ng mag-asawa ang kanilang karapatang tubusin ito. Nagpalabas ang RTC ng writ of possession pabor sa PNB at pinagtibay ito ng Court of Appeals (CA). Sa pagpapatibay ng desisyon ng CA, muling iginiit ng Korte na nagiging ganap na may-ari ang mamimili ng isang ari-ariang naibenta sa foreclosure kung hindi ito matutubos sa loob ng isang taon mula sa pagpaparehistro ng certificate of sale. Dahil nailipat na ang pagmamay-ari ng ari-arian sa PNB, tungkulin ng RTC na magpalabas ng writ of possession. Binuod ng Korte ang mga remedyo na maaaring gamitin ng isang debtor-mortgagor o nangutang na nagsangla ng ari-arian sa extrajudicial foreclosure at ipinaliwanag ang epekto ng mga ito sa writ of possession: 1. Habang umiiral ang redemption period at aktuwal nang hawak ng mamimili ang posesyon sa ari-arian, maaaring magsampa ang debtor-mortgagor ng petisyon sa mismong RTC na nagpalabas ng writ of possession para kuwestiyunin ang pagpapalabas nito batay sa mga sumusunod na dahilan: (a) Hindi nilabag ang kasunduan sa sangla, ibig sabihin, hindi nagkaroon ng hindi nabayarang hulog sa utang ang debtor-mortgagor; o (b) Hindi sumunod ang foreclosure sale sa mga pamamaraang itinakda sa Act No. 3135. 2. Matapos ang redemption period at nailipat na sa pangalan ng mamimili ang titulo ng ari-arian, pero hindi pa aktuwal na hawak ng mamimili ang pagmamay-ari nito: (a) Umapela laban sa utos na nagpapalabas ng writ of possession; (b) Magsampa ng hiwalay na kaso para ipawalang-bisa ang sangla at foreclosure sale. Sa paglalapat ng mga tuntuning ito, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na walang legal na batayan ang RTC para suspindihin ang pagpapatupad ng writ of possession habang nakabinbin ang apela ng mag-asawa. Hindi sapat ang paghahain lamang ng apela para mapigilan ang pagpapatupad ng writ. Basahin ang press release sa sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17636…. Basahin ang Desisyon sa sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=16887…. Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a…. #SupremeCourtPH #SCphTranslations

The #SupremeCourtPH (SC) has clarified the remedies available to borrowers whose properties have been sold through extrajudicial foreclosure. Borrowers may challenge the issuance of a writ of possession or the validity of the foreclosure, but these remedies, including an appeal, do not automatically prevent the purchaser from taking possession of the property.   In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition filed by spouses Anthony and Ma. Fatima An and upheld the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Philippine National Bank (PNB). The spouses took out a PHP 2 million loan and used their property as collateral. When they failed to pay the loan, PNB foreclosed on the mortgage and sold the property at a public auction   PNB was the highest bidder and became the property’s owner. When the spouses refused to leave the property, PNB asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to issue a writ of possession.   The spouses asserted they regularly made their loan payments and had not been notified of the foreclosure sale. They attempted to redeem the property, but PNB refused, arguing that the spouses had waived their right to redeem the property. The RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of PNB, which the Court of Appeals upheld. Affirming the Court of Appeals’ ruling, SC reiterated that a buyer of foreclosed property becomes its absolute owner if the property is not redeemed within one year from the registration of the certificate of sale. Since ownership had already been transferred to PNB, the RTC had a ministerial duty to issue the writ of possession. The SC then summarized the remedies available to a debtor-mortgagor (the borrower) in an extrajudicial foreclosure and explained their effect on the writ of possession:   1. 𝗗𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆: The debtor-mortgagor may file a petition with the same RTC which issued the writ of possession to question the issuance of such writ based on the following grounds:   (a)  The mortgage was not violated, i.e., the debtor-mortgagor did not miss any payments of the loan; or (b)  The foreclosure sale did not comply with the procedural requirements under Act No. 3135.   2. 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗿, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆:   (a)  Appeal the order granting the issuance of a writ of possession; (b) File a separate suit for annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure sale. Applying these rules, the SC held that the RTC had no legal basis to suspend the writ’s implementation while the spouses’ appeal was pending. The mere filing of the appeal did not prevent the writ from being enforced. Read the full text of the Press Release at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17636… Read the full text of the Decision at: 
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=16887…

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

The Judicial and Bar Council (@JBC_Ph) has announced the opening, for application, of the position of #SupremeCourtPH Associate Justice to take the place of Hon. Rodil V. Zalameda, who was appointed as Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines on November 6, 2026. Read the full text of the Announcement and the guidelines on application requirements at: jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-cont…