Atty. Phil Juris

  The Supreme Court has ruled that the installation of surveillance cameras that capture activities within a neighboring private property violates the constitutional and civil right to privacy, even if the area is not used as a residence. In a Decision penned by Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO, the Court’s Second Division granted the petition of Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing and reinstated the injunction ordering the removal of surveillance cameras installed by the respondents. Background of the Case The controversy arose between neighboring property owners in Mandaue City, Cebu. Spouses Hing owned a parcel of land where construction was ongoing. Adjacent to their property was a commercial establishment operated by a corporation associated with respondents Alexander and Allan Choachuy. After failing to secure an injunction in a prior case, the respondents caused the installation of video surveillance cameras mounted on their building, including a revolving camera that ca...

RATIONALE The law allows recovery of actual damages for loss of earning capacity in consideration of the heirs of the deceased or those who are legally entitled to support from the deceased. The damages do not pertain to the full amount of foregone earnings, "but of the support they received or would have received from [the deceased] had he not died in consequence of the negligence [or fault] of [the tortfeasor or the accused]."29 This form of actual damages quantifies the loss of the deceased’s family in terms of financial support they will receive from the deceased. A widow does not only grieve for the loss of her husband; she also has to worry about finding an additional source of livelihood. The condition is often worsened when the deceased is the sole breadwinner of the family and the family is already experiencing difficulties making ends meet. While this might not always be the case, the law devised the concept of actual damages in the form of loss of earning capacity ...

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case involves a dispute between the Heirs of the late Apolinario Caburnay (petitioners) and the Heirs of Teodulo Sison (respondents). The petitioners claim that they entered into a sale agreement with Teodulo Sison regarding a parcel of land, but upon Teodulo’s death, the sale was not completed, and the respondents, after executing an extrajudicial settlement of the estate, transferred the property to Jesus Sison, one of the heirs. The petitioners seek to declare the sale valid, and the property title in Jesus' name null and void, asserting that they had partially paid for the property. Respondents argue that the sale was invalid due to lack of consent from Teodulo's second wife, Perla, and that the action is barred by prescription. "In a nutshell, the present case involves a husband (Teodulo), who has married twice and has children (petitioners) from the first marriage. After the death of his first wife (Perpetua) and while married to his second...

" The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and the wife. The absence of the consent of one renders the sale null and void, while the vitiation thereof makes it merely voidable. Only in the latter case can ratification cure the defect. ” - SC STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case involves Spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang (petitioners) who purchased a portion of conjugal property from Judie Corpuz , the husband of Gilda Corpuz (private respondent), without Gilda’s consent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Koronadal, South Cotabato and subsequently the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled the sale null and void under Article 124 of the Family Code , which requires spousal consent for the disposition of conjugal property. The petitioners, claiming that the transaction was merely voidable and later ratified through an amicable settlement , sought relief from the Supreme Court (SC). Arguments Petitioners (Spouses Guiang): The Deed of Transfer of Righ...