Dear Attorney X,

My sister has been married for 5 years with her husband. In the past two years, I observed that
their relationship became worse and hostility has taken part of their lives. One day, I witnessed that her
husband inflicts physical and psychological violence by punching my sister and excessive shouting to their
two children. I am considering to file a case for violation of RA 9262 and I would like to know if it would
prosper.

Thank you very much,

Pearl

Dear Pearl,

Republic Act. No. 9262 otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children
Act of 2004" is the law that is applicable in your case.

Under the said law, in order to be liable for violation of RA 9262, the following elements must
concur:

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children.

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender
has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child.
As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without
the family abode.

(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and

(4) The anguish is caused through the acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or
similar acts or omissions.

In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed that the victim
is the woman who has then in a five year on going relationship with the offender and had two common
children. Such violence caused the woman and their children mental and emotional anguish that is
brought by the offender’s physical and verbal abuse.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 of RA 9262 just like the mental
anguish or emotional anguish caused on the victim. It is the means employed by the perpetrator, while
mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To
establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such
experiences are personal to the party.
 With regard to the instituting an action for the violation committed, the Regional Trial Court
designated as Family Court shall have original and exclusive over cases of violence against women and
their children as stated in Section 7 of such law.

As per Section 9(c) of the said law, being a collateral relative of the victim, you may also avail the
remedy of having a protection order issued by the Barangay in order to prevent further acts of violence
against a woman or her child. This remedy is immediately executory for the purpose of safeguarding the
victim from further harm, minimizing any disruption in the victim's daily life, and facilitating the
opportunity and ability of the victim to independently regain control over her life (Section 8, RA 9262)

These protection orders, under Section 10 of RA 9262, may be filed in the regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court with territorial jurisdiction over
the place of residence of the petitioner.

I would like to remind you that this advice is merely an opinion after a consideration of your
narration. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated. I hope that I am able to
educate you on your query.
Dear Attorney Y,

I am a businessman and depositor of bank for more than 8 years. I’ve been using the convenience
of banking in order to facilitate the processes of my businesses. However, one day, a mistake was
committed by an employee of the bank which resulted to the freezing of my account and the check I
issued on my clients were subsequently dishonored. I am planning to sue the bank for damages I have
incurred with all the mess created by the mistake. Will my case prosper?

Thanks in advance,

Charles

Dear Charles,

Yes. This case may prosper by filing a civil action for quasi delict. Under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code, before a person can be held liable for quasi-delict, the following requisites must be present:

(1) There must be an act or omission by the defendant;

(2) There must be fault or negligence of the defendant;

(3) There must be damage or injury caused to the plaintiff;

(4) There must be a direct relation or connection of cause and effect between the act or omission
and the damage; and

(5) There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

Article 2176 expressly excludes any “pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,’’ i.e.,
the plaintiff who sustained the damage and the defendant whose negligent act or omission was the cause
thereof. Quasi-delict is essentially extra-contractual in nature.

However, the existence of a contract does not preclude the commission of a quasi-delict by one
against another and the consequent recovery of damages against the former. When an act which
constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had
no contract existed between the parties, the contract can be said to have been breached by tort, thereby
allowing the rules on tort to apply.

In the case at bar, while there may be a contractual relation that exists between you and the bank,
it falls to the exception given in the case since the mistake of the employee is considered as a breach of
contract which is by itself a tort.

In other words, the tort liability is said to arise from a breach of contract when the act or omission
is in itself wrongful, independently of the contract, the breach of which being merely incidental to the
commission of the tort. The Supreme Court have repeatedly held, however, that the existence of a
contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the order and the
consequent recovery of damages therefor.
 As to the other elements, it is clear that such mistake is considered as fault or negligence on the
part of the bank and such mistake caused damage or injury on your part as shown by the inconvenience
that resulted from the wrongful act. Without such mistake, no harm could have been made to you and
your business.

I hope that these helped you in answering your question. May it be reminded that this is only my
opinion based on your narration of facts and may vary should any circumstance change or transpire.
Dear Attorney Z,

My mother and have been living together for the past 10 years since we are the only survivors on
our family after a strong typhoon hit our province. All members in our family perished during that tragic
event except the two of us. I did not consider entering into marriage in order to take care of my old and
sickly mother. Thereafter, my mother died due to old age and now I am left alone. No last will and
testament was made by my mother. I would like to know how can her properties be transferred to my
name. Thanks in advance.

Yours Truly,

Victor

Dear Victor,

I would like to first discuss the several actions that may be instituted for the settlement of an
estate. Generally, there are two modes pursuant to the provisions of Civil Code and the Rules of Court, to
wit: (1) Judicial Settlement of Estate; and (2) Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate. The first requires court
intervention, while the latter does not involve any.

If you are looking for a cost-efficient manner of settling the estate, the Rules of Court has provided
for the extra-judicial settlement of estate which requires no court intervention and avoids any
unnecessary proceedings. This option may be the most feasible considering the facts in your case.

Under the pertinent rules and provisions, before the heirs may avail themselves of the Extra
Judicial Settlement of Estate, the following requisites must be met:

1. Decedent died intestate;

2. There are no outstanding debts at the time of settlement;

3. Heirs are all of legal age or minors represented by judicial guardians or legal representative;

4. The settlement is made in a public instrument or by means of an affidavit, in case of a sole heir,
duly filed with Register of Deeds;

5. Publication of the extrajudicial settlement in a newspaper of general circulation in the province

once a week for three consecutive weeks; and

6. Filing of a bond equivalent to the value of personal property posted with Register of Deeds.

In view of the foregoing, your case properly conforms to the abovementioned requisites. Such
requisites must be faithfully observed. You must make sure that there is no will left by your mother
because it is an indispensable requirement and that there are no debts due from your mother.

You must bear in mind that being a sole heir of the decedent, what is required for you is to execute
an affidavit of self-adjudication with the Register of Deeds. This filing of an affidavit is for the protection
of the heirs or in your case, to protect your rights as the sole heir of decedent against other claimants.
 This requirement of registration of an affidavit is to serve as constructive notice to third parties
who wish to acquire the property that it is subject to an encumbrance of two years, counted from the
date of distribution of the estate to the heir/s.

It is further required under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court that the extrajudicial settlement be
published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. This is also for
the purpose of giving notice to those that may be interested and have claims in the settlement of the
estate.

The last requisite for extrajudicial settlement is for the parties to simultaneously file a bond with
and as a condition precedent to the filing of the affidavit of self-adjudication in the office of the Register
of Deeds. The amount of the bond shall be equivalent to the value of the personal property that forms
part of the estate, which shall be certified under oath by the parties concerned. It shall be conditioned
upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under Section 4 of Rule 74. The bond is required
only when personal property is involved. However, when the estate involves a real estate, it shall be
subject to a lien in favor of creditors, heirs or other persons for two years from distribution of estate,
notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 74.

I hope that your question is duly answered with the foregoing opinion that I made considering the
circumstances that you narrated.