Angelo Lopez III

Angelo Lopez III 🇵🇭 I am a lawyer by profession, but inspiring others is my greatest passion. ⚖️

25/10/2025

Paalala mula sa IBP: Protektahan ang sarili laban sa pekeng abogado.

Verify before you trust.

23/10/2025

OSG NOW REVIEWS ANNULMENTS BEFORE APPEALING

The Office of the Solicitor General will now review annulment cases before deciding to appeal, allowing the regional trial court’s decision to stand if no appeal is filed.

Read more at the link in comments.

13/10/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that a marriage officiated by a solemnizing officer without legal authority is generally void—but not if one or both spouses honestly believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

In a Decision written by then Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (retired), the SC’s Second Division dismissed the petition for nullity of marriage filed by a wife who claimed that the person who officiated her wedding was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

The couple was married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, with their marriage contract listing Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia) as the solemnizing officer.

However, more than 20 years later, the wife’s lawyer claimed that the purported officiant in their wedding photos was not Judge De Gracia but Rosalio Florendo, a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This led the wife to file a petition with the Regional Trial Court to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.

The SC found that the wife failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority. The marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

The SC cited Article 3 of the Family Code (FC) which lists as one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage the authority of the solemnizing officer. Meanwhile, Article 7 of FC clothes incumbent judges within their jurisdiction with such authority. Marriage solemnized by a person without such authority is void under Articles 4 and 35(2) of FC unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized in which case, the marriage is still valid.

While the wife later alleged that the solemnizing officer was not Judge De Gracia, the SC found that she presented no evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo.

The SC emphasized that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153254

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153241

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/267998-dissenting-opinion-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

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

12/10/2025

Appointment or Designation of an Elective Official to any Public Office or Position | Effect | Legal | Illegal | Mayor Benjamin Magalong | Baguio City | Special Adviser | Independent Commission for Infrastructure | ICI | Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution | Atty. Angelo Lopez III

06/10/2025

The (SC) has nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charged on the unpaid bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrower’s consent.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s Special Third Division granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernandez, whose properties were foreclosed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) after they failed to pay a PHP 16-million loan.

Ang and Fernandez obtained a loan from UCPB. Based on the loan documents, however, UCPB was allowed to unilaterally adjust the interest rate every quarter based on market conditions.

When Ang and Fernandez failed to pay the total loan when it fell due, UCPB began to extrajudicially foreclose their properties.

Ang and Fernandez then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the foreclosure sale, claiming that because the bank had the sole power to set and increase the interest rate, the rate was unfair and invalid.

The SC initially agreed that the interest rate was invalid but still upheld the foreclosure sale, ruling that the borrowers remained in default.

Upon reconsideration, however, the SC ruled that if the interest rate was unconscionable or imposed unilaterally by the lender, then any foreclosure that follows is also invalid.

The Court emphasized that under the Civil Code, contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon. A contract that depends only on one party’s will is void.

In this case, the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB. Since the interest rate was invalid, the foreclosure of the properties was void.

The SC held that the borrowers should be given a chance to pay the loan at an interest rate agreed upon by both parties. Otherwise, they would be at the mercy of the lender and risk losing their property without a fair opportunity to settle their debt.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152735.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152719.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152726.

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

03/10/2025

A “fugitive from justice” includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.

[Marquez v. Comelec, et. al. (G.R. No. 112889, April 18, 1995) | Rodriquez v. Comelec, et. al. (G.R. No. 120099, July 24, 1996)]

02/10/2025

“Every step you take towards your dreams is a victory. Celebrate your progress."
- Unknown

28/09/2025

We demand that the investigations conducted by the Independent Commission for Infrastructure be made public.

28/09/2025

No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. (Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution)

28/09/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that banks may be held liable for moral damages suffered by depositors due to negligence, even if there is no proof of bad faith or malice.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ordered Banco de Oro (BDO) to pay Remedios and Angelita Antonino (Antoninos) the proceeds of their time deposit, including PHP 100,000 in moral damages.

The Antoninos, who are U.S. green card holders living abroad, made three time deposit placements totaling over USD 150,000 at BDO’s San Lorenzo Branch in Makati City (BDO San Lorenzo). They had an arrangement with the branch manager that if the deposits were not withdrawn at maturity, they would automatically roll over into interest-bearing savings accounts. The time deposit certificates (TDCs) were not redeemed and were stored in a Banco Filipino deposit box for safekeeping.

Later, Banco Filipino declared bankruptcy and was taken over by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). It took the Antoninos some time to retrieve their TDCs from the PDIC.
BDO San Lorenzo then ceased operations and closed down without notifying the Antoninos, who only discovered the closure when they tried to withdraw their investments.

They sent several demand letters to BDO, but the bank claimed the deposits had already been withdrawn, citing a demand draft allegedly signed by Angelita. Angelita denied signing the document.

The Antoninos filed a complaint against BDO seeking payment of their time deposit placements.

Ruling in favor of the Antoninos, the SC cited Section 9 of BDO’s terms and conditions for time deposit placements, which requires the surrender of TDCs when withdrawing deposits. Since the Antoninos still had the certificates, the SC concluded that the funds were not withdrawn.

The SC noted that the PNP expert said the signature on the demand draft was likely forged. Immigration and passport records also showed Angelita could not have been in the country to sign the draft. Further, BDO failed to verify the identity of the person who withdrew the funds.

The SC held that these lapses showed BDO’s failure to exercise the required diligence, especially given the large amount involved.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152203.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152187.

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

26/09/2025

Mayor Benjamin Magalong of Baguio City resigns as Special Adviser to the Independent Commission for Infrastructure, effective immediately.

26/09/2025

Do you trust Marcoleta?

Address

Lopez Law Office, Unit 9 Parzon Square , Sto. Rosario St. , Sto. Domingo
Angeles City
2009

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+63453047104

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Angelo Lopez III posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category