DMMMSU-MLUC College of Law

DMMMSU-MLUC College of Law We teach law in a transcendental manner

24/08/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a bank cannot require a depositor to return money they already withdrew on the ground of unjust enrichment when the loss was caused by the bank’s own gross negligence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition filed by BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO), holding that the bank’s disregard of its own banking policy amounted to gross negligence.

The case stemmed from Cristina Barcellano’s (Barcellano) deposit of a regional check worth PHP 151,200 from an Albay branch of Landbank into her savings account at BDO’s Lucena City branch.

The BDO teller mistakenly validated the check as local instead of regional, allowing the amount to be credited after only three banking days instead of the required seven.

Believing the funds were available, Barcellano withdrew PHP 76,000. Shortly after, BDO received a stop payment order on the check and demanded that she return the money. Although Barcellano initially agreed, she never repaid the amount. BDO later refused to release the remaining balance and filed a criminal complaint for estafa.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals acquitted Barcellano, finding no fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence on her part and blamed BDO’s own negligence.

Before the SC, BDO asked for a review of the civil aspect of the case, arguing that despite Barcellano's acquittal, she should still be required to return the money. BDO argued that her refusal amounted to unjust enrichment and that since the funds were released due to its error in processing the check, Barcellano was required to return them based on the principle of 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪, which requires the repayment of money received by mistake.

The SC disagreed, ruling that there was no unjust enrichment because BDO failed to prove that Barcellano knowingly received and retained a benefit to which she was not entitled.

SC declared that the bank did not explain why the stop payment order was issued or show that Barcellano knew the check would not be honored. Instead, the evidence showed that she withdrew the money in good faith after BDO itself made the funds available in her account.

The SC also ruled that BDO’s own gross negligence caused its loss. It found that the bank credited the check before it had properly cleared it, incorrectly treated a regional check as a local check, and failed to detect the error until after receiving the stop payment order. These lapses showed a failure to observe basic safeguards meant to protect the bank from the risks of invalid checks.

The SC also rejected BDO’s reliance on solutio indebiti. Although the doctrine generally requires the return of money received by mistake, it does not apply when the mistake resulted from the payor’s own gross negligence. Here, BDO’s error stemmed from its failure to exercise the extraordinary diligence and reasonable prudence required of banks.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171657

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/

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

24/08/2026

The (SC) has ruled that courts may determine whether a party is alive or dead in an ejectment case when necessary to resolve who has the right to possess a property. However, this finding is only provisional and applies solely to the ejectment case.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division emphasized this ruling as it denied the appeal filed by Belinda E. Soriano and her relatives (collectively, Belinda and others) in an ejectment case filed against them by Antonio V. Estrella (Estrella).

Estrella claimed ownership of a property in Quezon City where Belinda and others lived with his permission. When they refused his demand in 2012 to vacate the property so he could renovate it, Estrella filed an unlawful detainer case.

Belinda and others argued that the case should be dismissed because Estrella supposedly lacked the legal capacity to sue, having died in 1990. They provided his death certificate as evidence.

Ruling in Estrella’s favor, the SC held that Estrella had successfully overcome the presumption created by his death certificate. The parties themselves acknowledged that the Estrella who filed the case was the same Estrella named in the property’s title. Belinda and others never claimed that he was an impostor or disputed his identity. This, along with Estrella’s living presence, confirmed his legal capacity to sue.

​The SC clarified that while the proper remedy to cancel a death certificate or correct a civil registry entry is to file a petition for cancellation, this does not prevent courts hearing ejectment cases from provisionally determining whether a party is alive or dead when necessary to resolve the issue of possession.

Accordingly, the SC held that a court’s finding on whether a party is alive or dead in an ejectment case is limited to determining that party’s legal capacity to sue and right to physical possession of the property.

The SC also ruled that the requirements for unlawful detainer were met. Belinda and others initially had lawful possession of the property; however, it became unlawful once Estrella demanded that they vacate and they refused, leading him to file the case within the one-year period required by law.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171407.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/236333-belinda-e-soriano-et-al-vs-antonio-v-estrella/.

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

19/08/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sales agent’s promise to issue a Contract to Sell after payment of reservation fee is not an “advertisement” under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 957, or the 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘉𝘶𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦, that would form part of developer’s warranties. However, the developer may still be required to refund a buyer if it fails to honor that promise.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ordered Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. (Empire East) to refund the payments made by John Edrem Bautista (Bautista) after it failed to issue the promised Contract to Sell.

Bautista paid Empire East for a residential unit PHP 130,000, consisting of a PHP 20,000 reservation fee and PHP 110,000 in additional payments. He claimed he made the payments because Empire East’s sales agent promised to issue a Contract to Sell once he paid the reservation fee. When more than a year passed without the contract being issued, Bautista stopped making payments and demanded a refund.

The SC, agreeing with both the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) and the Court of Appeals which ruled in Bautista’s favor, held that Bautista was entitled to a refund but clarified that the sales agent’s promise did not fall under Section 19 of PD 957.

The SC clarified that Section 19, which mandates truthful and non-misleading advertisements and sales materials, applies only to materials intended for the general public, such as those in those in newspapers, radio, TV, or similar mass communication channels. It does not cover promises made by a sales agent to individual buyers.

The SC emphasized that buyers remain protected, as developers may still be held liable under their contractual obligations and other applicable laws.

The SC ordered Empire East to refund Bautista the PHP 130,000 with interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the filing of the complaint in 2012, as well as to pay PHP 260,000 in exemplary damages, which courts award to discourage wrongful conduct and warn against similar actions.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171359.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/272556-1.pdf.

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

Students are advised to coordinate with their professors on the final schedule and modality of their midterm examination...
19/08/2026

Students are advised to coordinate with their professors on the final schedule and modality of their midterm examinations

𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘 | 𝐀𝐔𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝟐𝟎, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

Pursuant to the directive of University President Dr. Jaime I. Manuel, Jr., and in view of Memorandum Circular No. 131 issued by the Office of the President of the Philippines, the following arrangements shall be observed University-wide on Thursday, August 20, 2026:

• On-site operations in all offices across the University’s Operating Units shall be suspended, with personnel adopting a Work-From-Home (WFH) arrangement.

• All classes shall be conducted asynchronously.

This advisory supersedes the earlier announcement on the August 20 work arrangements, particularly the onsite reporting requirements previously indicated for faculty members on VSL and nonteaching personnel at MLUC, ELUC, OUS, and SLUC.

Students, faculty members, and personnel are advised to monitor the University’s official communication channels for subsequent announcements and updates.

Please be guided accordingly.


Students are advised to coordinate with their professors on the final schedule and modality of their midterm examination...
19/08/2026

Students are advised to coordinate with their professors on the final schedule and modality of their midterm examinations

𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘 | 𝐀𝐔𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝟐𝟎 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝟐𝟐, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗦𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧
August 20 and 22, 2026
• All scheduled classes across the University shall be conducted through 𝐀𝐒𝐘𝐍𝐂𝐇𝐑𝐎𝐍𝐎𝐔𝐒 𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐄.
• Students are reminded that asynchronous learning days remain regular instructional days and that assigned learning activities and academic requirements must be accomplished.
The arrangement will also give students greater flexibility to:
✓ consolidate their learning;
✓ complete academic requirements; and
✓ prepare adequately for the 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟓-𝟐𝟕, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔.

𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞 𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧
𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗔𝗡 𝗖𝗟𝗨𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥 (𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗡𝗟𝗨𝗖, 𝗦𝗥𝗗𝗜, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗗𝗜)
For August 20, 2026, in view of the scheduled power interruption in Bacnotan, La Union:
• Personnel, including Contract of Service (COS) and Job Order (JO) workers, whose functions can be performed remotely, may avail themselves of the 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤-𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦-𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞 (𝐖𝐅𝐇) 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, subject to existing University policies and the approval of their respective supervisors.
• Personnel assigned to essential services, including security, medical, janitorial, and dormitory management, shall continue to report onsite.
• Heads of Operating Units shall ensure the continuity of essential operations and the proper monitoring and accountability of personnel under the WFH arrangement.

These provisions are consistent with the Office of the President Memorandum No. 000762.

𝗠𝗟𝗨𝗖, 𝗘𝗟𝗨𝗖, 𝗢𝗨𝗦, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗦𝗟𝗨𝗖
For August 20, 2026:
• Faculty members not on VSL may avail themselves of the WFH arrangement.
• Faculty members on VSL shall report onsite.
• Nonteaching personnel shall likewise report onsite.

The arrangements seek to:
✓ minimize unnecessary travel and exposure to weather-related risks;
✓ address operational limitations brought about by the scheduled power interruption;
✓ sustain the continuity of teaching and learning; and
✓ provide students with adequate opportunity to prepare for the upcoming Midterm Examinations.

___
Notwithstanding the WFH arrangement across the University, Heads of Operating Units are authorized to require concerned personnel to report onsite, as necessary, to perform urgent and essential tasks and ensure the continuity of University operations.

All students and personnel are advised to remain vigilant, monitor weather conditions, and follow subsequent announcements through the University’s official communication channels.

Please be guided accordingly.

Students are advised to coordinate with their professors on the final schedule and modality of their midterm examination...
18/08/2026

Students are advised to coordinate with their professors on the final schedule and modality of their midterm examinations

𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘 | 𝐀𝐔𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝟏𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

Pursuant to the directive of University President Dr. Jaime I. Manuel, Jr., and in view of Memorandum Circular No. 129, DMMMSU will implement asynchronous classes and a Work-From-Home (WFH) arrangement on Wednesday, August 19, 2026.

Students, faculty members, and personnel are advised to monitor official University channels for further announcements.

Please be guided accordingly.

Students are advised to coordinate with their professors on the final schedule and modality of their midterm examination...
17/08/2026

Students are advised to coordinate with their professors on the final schedule and modality of their midterm examinations

𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘 | 𝐀𝐔𝐆𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝟏𝟖, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

Pursuant to the directive of University President Dr. Jaime I. Manuel, Jr., and in view of Memorandum Circular No. 128, DMMMSU will implement asynchronous classes and a Work-From-Home (WFH) arrangement on Tuesday, August 18, 2026.

The Midterm Examinations are scheduled on:

August 25, 2026 | Tuesday
August 26, 2026 | Wednesday
August 27, 2026 | Thursday

Students, faculty members, and personnel are advised to take note of these arrangements and monitor official University channels for further announcements.

Please be guided accordingly.

Examinations scheduled today that may be administered online will proceed. Otherwise, exams scheduled for today will be ...
17/08/2026

Examinations scheduled today that may be administered online will proceed. Otherwise, exams scheduled for today will be administered next week.

𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘 | 𝐀𝐒𝐘𝐍𝐂𝐇𝐑𝐎𝐍𝐎𝐔𝐒 𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐒

In view of the announcements issued by Local Government Units (LGUs) regarding the Orange Rainfall Warning, classes at DMMMSU shall shift to asynchronous mode beginning at 1:00 PM today, August 17, 2026.

Students are advised to coordinate with their respective instructors regarding assigned learning activities and other course requirements.

Everyone is encouraged to exercise caution, remain alert, and continue monitoring official weather advisories and announcements from concerned government agencies and LGUs.

Please be guided accordingly.

16/08/2026

𝐀𝐃𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐎𝐑𝐘

Pursuant to the directive of the University President, the following class arrangements shall be observed tomorrow, August 17, 2026 (Monday):

• Tertiary Level, including CLAW and COMED – Face-to-Face Classes

• Basic Education – Asynchronous Classes

All students, faculty members, and other concerned personnel are advised to take note of these arrangements and monitor official DMMMSU channels for further announcements.

Please be guided accordingly.

13/08/2026

𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐲 𝐁𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐃𝐫. 𝐀𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧 𝐑. 𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐝𝐞𝐦!

May your special day be filled with joy, good health, and meaningful moments. May you continue to be blessed with wisdom, strength, and inspiration as you lead our campus toward greater achievements and excellence.

Happy Birthday, Chancellor Alvin!

Warmest wishes from your DMMMSU-MLUC family!

Address

Quezon Avenue, Catbangen
San Fernando
2500

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when DMMMSU-MLUC College of Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The University

Send a message to DMMMSU-MLUC College of Law:

Shortcuts

Share