law – Real LexEcon

36 Years Later: Why Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform Matters?

Thirty-six years since its 1989 ruling, Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform remains the cornerstone of Philippine expropriation law—defining “just compensation” as the full and fair equivalent of property taken, not merely its cash price, and proving that reform and fairness can coexist under the rule of law.

It has been more than three decades since the Supreme Court decided Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, July 14, 1989). Yet, the echoes of that landmark case still resonate across today’s debates on land rights, expropriation, and social justice. The case remains a constitutional compass for expropriation and land valuation. It guides the ongoing struggle to harmonize social justice with property rights.

This 1989 decision — penned by Justice Isagani A. Cruz — did more than uphold the constitutionality of agrarian reform under President Corazon Aquino. It defined how the State must pursue justice without committing injustice.

The 1989 decision, penned by Justice Isagani A. Cruz, arose at a pivotal moment. The Philippines had just ratified the 1987 Constitution. This called for genuine agrarian reform as a cornerstone of social justice. Acting under that mandate, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, launching the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). These measures authorized the compulsory acquisition of private agricultural lands. Payment was provided not solely in cash. It also included government bonds, shares of stock, and other financial instruments.

Many landowners objected, arguing that such payment schemes were confiscatory and unconstitutional. They contended that agrarian reform could not override the constitutional protection of private property. They insisted that compensation must be paid in full and in money. The case reached the Supreme Court. The issue was not the legitimacy of reform itself. Instead, it was about the manner by which it was to be carried out.

Justice Cruz spoke for the Court. He upheld the constitutionality of the government’s agrarian reform measures. He delivered what would become one of the most defining interpretations of the Constitution’s takings clause. He explained that agrarian reform is “police power in purpose but eminent domain in method.” It is justified by the public welfare. Yet it involves the taking of private property. Therefore, it requires the payment of just compensation.

🟩 “The measure of compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The word ‘just’ is used to intensify the meaning of the word ‘compensation,’ to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample. Such payment need not always be made in money. It may be in other things of equivalent value, as long as it is real, substantial, and just.”
— Justice Isagani A. Cruz, Association of Small Landowners (1989)

The Court emphasized that the question of just compensation is judicial in nature. Courts have the final word on what is fair and just, not any administrative or legislative body. This passage marked a turning point in Philippine constitutional law. It did not abandon market value as the measure of compensation. Instead, it broadened the understanding of how justice may be delivered in its equivalent form.

Justice Isagani Cruz, writing for the Court, clarified that the measure of compensation remains the property’s market value. This is the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller under normal conditions.
What the Court changed was not the measure, but the form.

The Court held that just compensation need not always be paid in cash. The owner must receive the full and fair equivalent of the property’s market value. This means that payment can be made through bonds, stocks, or other financial instruments, provided they reflect true, realizable worth.

The logic was both constitutional and practical. Implementing agrarian reform on a national scale would have been impossible. This task involves millions of hectares. It would not be feasible if the government were required to pay every landowner in full cash. The Court allowed flexibility. However, it insisted that the total value received must be real, substantial, and equivalent to what was taken.

In other words:

The market value remains the yardstick,
while equivalent value is the means of payment.

The Court recognized that the price paid must reflect the full and fair value of the property taken. It should be the true market value. However, under exceptional circumstances, the government will pay through instruments of equivalent value. These instruments can be bonds or shares, as long as their worth is real and realizable. This doctrinal shift was both pragmatic and principled. The State can pursue a massive redistribution of land. It did so without collapsing under fiscal burden. Meanwhile, it safeguarded the constitutional rights of landowners to fair recompense.

Later decisions, including Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco (2004) and Land Bank v. Honeycomb Farms (2009), reaffirmed this doctrine. Courts must determine just compensation based on market indicators, which include comparable sales, income potential, and zonal valuations. This holds even if the payment is made through other equivalent means. Thus, while the form of payment may vary, the standard of fairness does not. The Small Landowners decision preserved the essence of justice. It ensures that the value taken must be replaced by the same value returned. This must be done in whatever lawful form.

Beyond its technical rulings, the case represents a moral and constitutional reconciliation. It proved that reform need not be confiscation. Social justice must operate within the boundaries of the rule of law. The State may pursue redistribution and public welfare. However, it cannot deny fairness to those from whom the property is taken. In that balance lies the very heart of constitutional democracy.

More than three decades later, the decision continues to influence modern expropriation cases, such as Republic v. Arellano University (G.R. No. 260038, 2025), where the Court reaffirmed that just compensation cannot be based merely on administrative valuations or outdated schedules of market values. It must reflect all relevant market conditions. It should consider the property’s location and potential. Other factual considerations must make compensation truly fair. These modern cases, while dealing with urban development and public infrastructure, trace their constitutional lineage directly to Small Landowners.

The ruling’s wisdom resonates today in broader contexts. These include urban redevelopment, socialized housing, and environmental expropriations. It is also present in discussions on carbon markets and the just transition. Its enduring message is that reform must be fair, and fairness must be real. The law may adapt to new social challenges, but its foundation in justice and due process remains unchanged.

Association of Small Landowners remains a testament to the idea that progress and fairness are not adversaries but partners. The decision did not merely uphold agrarian reform; it humanized it. It emphasized that while the State may right historical wrongs, it must ensure the integrity of law is preserved. Thirty-six years later, it continues to serve as a reminder to both the government and citizens. Social justice should not be pursued at the expense of constitutional justice. No taking, however noble its purpose, is truly just without just compensation.

Why It Matters Today

The decision remains a bedrock precedent in property law, agrarian reform, and expropriation. It clarified the balance between individual property rights and collective welfare. This decision shapes how courts interpret “just compensation” in modern takings. These include cases from agrarian lands to urban redevelopment, road widening, and environmental expropriations.

In contemporary jurisprudence (e.g., City Government of Pasay v. Arellano University, 2025), the same principles continue to ensure that landowners are fairly compensated, while allowing the State to pursue inclusive, socially just development.

For further reading:

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (1989) https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/jul1989/gr_78742_1989.html

2. City Government of Pasay v. Arellano University, 2025 https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260038-city-government-of-pasay-vs-arellano-university/

Why the DOJ Holds the Key to the Witness Protection Program

One of the landmark reforms in the Philippine criminal justice system is Republic Act No. 6981, otherwise known as the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. The law was enacted to encourage witnesses to testify in criminal cases by granting them immunity from prosecution and providing protection and benefits that ensure their safety and livelihood. At the heart of this reform is the central role of the Department of Justice (DOJ), whose authority was tested in the high-profile case of Webb v. De Leon (G.R. Nos. 121234, 121245, 121297, August 23, 1995).

Under Section 12 of R.A. 6981, the DOJ has the power to admit witnesses into the program. Once admitted, the certification issued by the DOJ must be given full faith and credit by public prosecutors. This means that prosecutors are barred from including the admitted witness in any criminal complaint or information, and if the witness has already been charged, the prosecutor is duty-bound to move for his or her discharge. Admission also grants the witness immunity from prosecution for the related offenses, together with access to rights and benefits such as security, relocation, subsistence, and employment assistance.

This provision was challenged by petitioner Hubert Webb, who argued that only the courts, under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, have the authority to discharge an accused as a state witness. He claimed that allowing the DOJ to decide on the admission of witnesses intrudes upon judicial prerogatives and violates the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the prosecution of crimes is fundamentally an executive function, anchored on the constitutional duty of the executive branch to “faithfully execute the laws.” The discretion to determine whether, what, and whom to charge—including who may be used as a state witness—properly belongs to the DOJ as part of its prosecutorial power. The Court clarified that while Rule 119 empowers courts to discharge an accused once jurisdiction has been acquired, this authority is jurisdictional rather than inherent. It ensures that proceedings remain orderly, but it does not strip the DOJ of its primary role in deciding witness admissions under R.A. 6981.

The decision underscores the delicate balance between the branches of government: the executive determines who to prosecute and who to use as a state witness, while the judiciary supervises proceedings once a case is filed. By upholding the DOJ’s role, the Court strengthened the Witness Protection Program as a vital tool for combating crime. As the DOJ itself pointed out, many cases in the past had been dismissed due to witnesses refusing to testify out of fear or economic dislocation. R.A. 6981 and its interpretation in Webb directly address this challenge by protecting witnesses and ensuring their cooperation.

The Webb v. De Leon ruling affirms that the DOJ’s role in the Witness Protection Program is constitutionally sound and crucial for the administration of criminal justice. By empowering the DOJ to certify and immunize state witnesses, the law tackles one of the biggest obstacles in criminal prosecutions: the silence of those who know the truth. In a justice system often hampered by fear and intimidation, the law sends a clear message—witnesses will be protected, and their courage will not be in vain.

You may download the Supreme Court case here:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_121234_1995.html

How an Expert Witness Prepares for Trial

“An expert witness is expected to assist the court in understanding technical evidence by providing independent, objective, and reasoned opinions based on established expertise.” — Tortona v. Gregorio, G.R. No. 202612, Jan. 17, 2018

Appearing in court as an expert witness is a serious responsibility. It demands more than just professional qualifications—it requires thorough preparation, clarity in communication, and strict adherence to both legal and ethical standards. Whether in the field of real estate appraisal, engineering, accounting, or any technical discipline, the effectiveness of an expert witness lies in how well they understand their role and how clearly they can assist the court.

The preparation begins with a full understanding of the case. The expert must study the pleadings, judicial affidavits, motions, and any relevant reports to grasp the context of the legal dispute. This understanding helps frame the opinion the expert will give. Once the scope of the engagement is clear, the expert proceeds to draft and finalize their report. The report must be factual, supported by data, and rooted in accepted professional standards—such as the Philippine Valuation Standards for appraisers or the relevant codes of ethics and methodology in other professions. This report, along with the judicial affidavit required by the Rules of Court, becomes the backbone of the expert’s courtroom presentation.

Communication with counsel is vital. The lawyer and the expert must align on what issues the expert will testify to, what documents and evidence will be referred to, and how the expert can best support the legal theory of the case without overstepping their bounds. A good lawyer will also simulate a mock direct and cross-examination to help the expert anticipate difficult or technical questions, and practice answering in a way that is truthful, clear, and calm.

On the day of the trial, the expert must come prepared. This means dressing professionally, arriving early, and bringing all necessary materials—copies of the report, affidavits, supporting documentation, and visual aids such as charts or maps. During testimony, the expert is first qualified by the court. Once recognized as an expert in their field, they proceed to give their opinion under oath, guided by the direct examination of counsel. The expert must maintain composure during cross-examination, avoid defensive behavior, and be honest if they don’t know the answer to a question. Judges value precision and honesty over attempts to impress or advocate for one party.

Ultimately, the credibility of an expert witness rests not only on credentials but on the ability to explain complex matters in a straightforward and impartial manner. A well-prepared expert supports the truth-seeking function of the court. By grounding their opinion in verifiable data and presenting it clearly, the expert becomes a bridge between technical knowledge and legal judgment. Preparation, professionalism, and integrity are the foundation of any expert testimony that truly helps the court reach a just and informed decision.

Serving as an expert witness requires more than just subject matter expertise. It demands professionalism, preparation, and precision. Whether you’re a real estate appraiser, economist, forensic analyst, or valuation consultant, the courtroom is your stage to translate complex findings into reliable, understandable truth.

With proper preparation, your testimony can become the turning point in delivering justice.

Why Expert Witnesses are Crucial in Modern Litigation

In the resolution of civil disputes in the Philippines, courts are increasingly confronted with cases involving factual and technical issues that fall outside the competence of judges or laypersons. In such instances, the assistance of expert witnesses becomes indispensable. Expert reports—submitted by persons possessing special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular field—help the courts understand, assess, and decide on matters requiring specialized inquiry. These reports are commonly used in civil litigation involving businesses, medical negligence, engineering defects, property valuation, environmental compliance, intellectual property disputes, accounting and taxation issues, financial rehabilitation proceedings, actions to quiet title, and assessment of actual or consequential damages.

The admissibility and evidentiary value of expert reports in the Philippine legal system are governed by Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, as amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC (2020). Section 22 authorizes the reception of expert opinion on matters requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, or training, provided the witness is properly qualified. Section 23 further clarifies that an expert’s opinion is not inadmissible merely because it touches on the ultimate issue to be decided by the court. Section 24 permits experts to base their opinions on personal knowledge or on data made known to them prior to the hearing—even if such underlying facts are not independently admissible—so long as they are of a type reasonably relied upon by professionals in the field. These provisions affirm the judiciary’s recognition of expert testimony as an essential tool in the adjudication of fact-intensive and technical disputes.

In practice, expert reports are submitted through judicial affidavits pursuant to A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC. These affidavits must identify the expert’s credentials, state the matters covered by the opinion, explain the data and methodology relied upon, and present the conclusions reached. During trial, the expert must be presented for direct and cross-examination, thereby allowing the opposing party and the court to test the validity, accuracy, and credibility of the findings. The report itself may be offered as documentary evidence, provided it is properly identified, authenticated, and formally offered in accordance with the rules on evidence.

Philippine jurisprudence strongly supports the admissibility and evidentiary weight of expert testimony. In National Power Corporation v. Sps. Saludares (G.R. No. 183053, January 13, 2016), the Court held that valuation reports carry probative weight if they apply recognized standards and methodologies. In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Heirs of Deleste (G.R. No. 195838, March 12, 2014), the Court accepted the use of formula-based valuation reports, affirming the relevance of expert input. Beyond valuation, in People v. Manalansan (G.R. No. 194844, February 10, 2014), the Court acknowledged that expert testimony is vital in matters involving scientific or medical evidence that judges are not expected to understand without professional assistance.

In complex civil forfeiture cases, such as Republic v. Corona, where the state seeks to recover allegedly ill-gotten wealth, expert witnesses—specifically forensic accountants or financial analysts—are indispensable due to the voluminous and intricate financial data involved. Their crucial role encompasses reconstructing and analyzing financial transactions, aggregating diverse financial documents, calculating wealth discrepancies by comparing income with acquired assets, and explaining complex financial concepts (e.g., co-mingling funds, offshore accounts) to the court. They are vital for identifying inconsistencies, presenting findings clearly, and even rebutting defense arguments. Without their specialized expertise, it would be virtually impossible for the court to navigate the technical barriers of financial information, prove key elements like “unexplained wealth,” and bridge the knowledge gap between raw financial data and the legal framework, ultimately transforming complex financial patterns into comprehensible evidence.

Another clear example of the value of expert testimony is found in Tortona v. Gregorio (G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018), where the Supreme Court upheld the annulment of a notarized deed of sale based on the expert findings of an NBI fingerprint examiner. The examiner concluded that the thumbmarks on the deed did not belong to the deceased owner. While the Court of Appeals relied on the presumption of regularity in notarized documents, the Supreme Court ruled that the expert’s analysis constituted “clear and convincing evidence” sufficient to rebut such presumption. The Court emphasized that when issues involve technical matters beyond common understanding, credible expert opinion may be given controlling weight.

Expert testimony also plays a vital role in cases involving taxation, rehabilitation, and complex financial disputes. For instance, in tax litigation, an expert in tax compliance or accounting may be necessary to explain corporate records, reconcile audit findings, or assess alleged deficiencies. In petitions for corporate rehabilitation or liquidation under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA), expert financial analysts or restructuring professionals help the court evaluate feasibility studies, business plans, or asset schedules. In land disputes involving conflicting titles or boundary issues, land surveyors or geodetic engineers offer clarity on technical descriptions and mapping inconsistencies. In actions for damages, whether contractual or quasi-delictual, economic experts or forensic accountants may be called upon to quantify actual loss, opportunity cost, or lost profits with precision. In all these scenarios, the expert’s role is to provide clarity and credibility to otherwise complex matters, enabling the court to make an informed and just decision.

In line with this, Mr. Gus Agosto—a licensed real estate practitioner and economist—has served as an expert witness in various court proceedings, offering professional opinion on matters involving taxation, business forecasting, property valuation, and applied economics. His independent analyses have supported judicial determinations in numerous cases, including those involving corporate rehabilitation, tax assessments, and property disputes. His experience underscores the crucial role that credible and well-grounded expert opinions play in bridging technical complexity and judicial understanding.

The weight accorded to expert reports depends on the qualifications of the witness, the soundness of the methodology used, and the extent to which the conclusions are anchored in factual and reliable data. While expert opinions are not binding on the court, they may be given substantial persuasive value. Courts may disregard expert testimony if it is speculative, methodologically unsound, or tainted by bias. Nevertheless, when grounded in proper expertise and presented with clarity and integrity, expert evidence often proves pivotal in resolving factual controversies.

Expert reports serve a vital function in civil litigation. They assist courts in resolving technical matters that demand professional judgment, supplement the court’s understanding of complex factual scenarios, and contribute to the just and efficient resolution of disputes. The Philippine Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize and regulate the role of expert witnesses with sufficient clarity and flexibility, enabling trial courts to benefit from specialized knowledge without abdicating their judicial function. For litigants and counsel, engaging a credible expert and presenting a well-structured report is not merely a procedural strategy—it is often an indispensable element in building a persuasive and well-supported case.

Expert witnesses are not merely helpful—they are often essential to proving or rebutting complex factual claims in civil litigation. Their testimony ensures that the court is not left to speculate on matters requiring specialized understanding. As jurisprudence affirms, when the facts are too complex for lay judgment, expert testimony becomes a cornerstone of a fair trial.

One Hat at a Time: Ethical and Legal Boundaries in Real Estate Practice

In Philippine real estate practice, a professional may wear multiple hats: appraiser, broker, consultant, or assessor. With these roles come distinct legal obligations and ethical expectations. Among the most critical distinctions is the contrast between the appraiser’s duty of independence and the broker’s duty of agency. Understanding this distinction—and reconciling it—is essential to preserving public trust and professional credibility in the real estate industry. This article explores how the ethical and legal foundations of real estate practice, as rooted in the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code, and the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines (R.A. 9646), guide practitioners in navigating these complex but complementary roles.

A real estate appraiser is a professional whose primary obligation is to render an independent, objective, and evidence-based opinion of value. The appraiser must act with impartiality, applying market data, sound valuation methodology, and professional judgment. The role demands a non-advocacy stance—the appraiser is not to promote the interests of any party, even the client. By contrast, a real estate broker functions under a legal agency relationship. As an agent, the broker owes a fiduciary duty to the client, which includes loyalty, obedience, diligence, full disclosure, confidentiality, and accountability. A broker is expected to promote and protect the client’s interests, even as they observe fairness and ethical conduct in dealings with others.

These differing roles raise a central ethical concern: how can a real estate professional reconcile the objectivity demanded of an appraiser and the loyalty expected of a broker, especially when licensed to perform both? The answer lies in the principle of professional role separation and ethical discipline. Each role must be exercised independently, with clear disclosure and without overlap that compromises impartiality or fiduciary duty. When acting as an appraiser, the practitioner must distance themselves from any client advocacy. When acting as a broker, they must zealously represent their client, but always within the bounds of the law and truthfulness. This ethical discipline—“wearing one hat at a time”—is crucial to maintaining credibility, avoiding conflict of interest, and upholding public trust.

First and foremost, the Real Estate Service Act of 2009 (R.A. 9646) formalizes the ethical obligations of appraisers, brokers, and other real estate professionals. Section 39 mandates that all practitioners be guided by a Code of Ethics and Responsibilities as adopted by the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service. This affirms the legal requirement to observe integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, transparency, and public accountability in all aspects of professional practice. Violations of these ethical mandates can result in administrative sanctions such as license suspension or revocation, in addition to possible civil or criminal liability.

The ethical standards expected of real estate professionals are enshrined further in Philippine civil law. Chapter 2, Book I of the Civil Code, on Human Relations, provides the normative foundation for conduct in both personal and professional spheres. Article 19 mandates that “every person must, in the exercise of his rights and the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” This provision is the cornerstone of professional ethics, requiring appraisers and brokers to act not merely within legal bounds, but with moral integrity, fairness, and honesty. Article 20 states that “every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.” A real estate professional may thus be held civilly liable for losses caused by misrepresentation, bias, or negligence, such as inflated valuations or failure to disclose material facts. Furthermore, Article 21 provides that “any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” Even in the absence of a specific law or contract violation, acts against professional ethics or public trust may be actionable under this general clause on moral damages.

The Revised Penal Code supplements civil liabilities with criminal sanctions for unethical conduct that involves deceit, falsification, or breach of public trust. Article 171 on falsification of public documents and Article 172 on falsification by private individuals provide penalties for those who falsify data, signatures, or reports, particularly when such documents are submitted to government agencies for purposes such as taxation, loan application, or litigation. A real estate professional, acting dishonestly in the preparation or authentication of a report, may thus face criminal liability. Similarly, Articles 315 and 318, which address estafa and other deceits, penalize professionals who mislead clients or third parties for financial gain. This includes concealing defects, inflating values, or misrepresenting the true nature of a property transaction. These laws underscore that professional misconduct is not merely unethical—it can be criminal.

The real estate profession is grounded not only in technical competence but also in ethical clarity and legal responsibility. The roles of appraiser and broker may be different, but both demand honesty, fairness, and accountability. Whether providing an objective valuation or advocating for a client in a sale, the real estate professional must be guided by the legal duty to act with justice, good faith, and respect for others’ rights. Ultimately, the integrity of real estate transactions—and of the profession itself—depends on each practitioner’s ability to uphold their role with clear boundaries and an unwavering commitment to ethical conduct. In doing so, they not only comply with the law but also protect the public, the profession, and the value of their word.

A Journey of Trust and Transformation

Blake Feken’s 20-year journey in the legal profession is a testament to the power of trust, dedication, and integrity. Formerly a senior associate lawyer at a leading firm, he founded his own real estate services company in 2014, specializing in breakthrough negotiations and innovative dispute resolution. Blake’s career has taken him through various fields—from mining and natural resources to corporate law and telecommunications—but his ultimate focus has always been on creating impactful, transformative solutions for his clients. In a recent interview, he shared his insights on the legal profession, balancing work with personal growth, and the importance of trust in client relationships.

Early Beginnings

Atty. Blake credits his mother as his inspiration for becoming a lawyer, albeit in an unexpected way. As a child, he had a natural inclination for debate, often defending his stance with explanations, alibis, and well-reasoned arguments—qualities his mother noticed and encouraged. She saw in him the potential for a legal career, urging him to channel his natural skills into law. This early push laid the foundation for a profession that would later become his passion.

Reflecting on this influence, Blake said, “My mother observed me as a smart-aleck kid who is always quick to argue, defend a position, and explain away certain behaviors. She told me to become a lawyer because I was always acting like one, (in short, mahusay magpalusot)”. It’s a reminder that sometimes, career paths are set in motion long before we realize it.

Blake’s journey in law began with an impressive range of specialties at a top law firm, where he worked on cases involving real estate, mining, government contracts, corporate law, and public utilities, among other areas. Despite his successful tenure, he ultimately felt drawn to a more specialized and impactful role in real estate, founding his company in 2014. Today, he focuses on breakthrough negotiations—finding transformative solutions to complex client issues through tailored remedies and innovative problem-solving.

This shift allowed him to not only bring his legal expertise to bear on real estate issues but also to pursue a purpose-driven approach. For Blake, it isn’t just about resolving disputes or drafting contracts; it’s about providing clients and stakeholders with meaningful, often life-changing, outcomes.

A Day in the Life

Atty. Blake describes his workday as one of deep contemplation and strategic planning. “A typical day would consist of a lot of thinking, reading, contemplating, writing, planning, and strategizing,” he shared. In his current role, he’s as much a strategist as he is a lawyer, using his time to carefully assess his clients’ needs, anticipate issues, and devise effective solutions.

This thoughtful approach aligns with Blake’s dedication to providing clients with not only legal guidance but also a roadmap for successful negotiations and outcomes. His work requires constant reflection, reminding him of the importance of clarity and foresight in making sound legal decisions.

A Defining Moment

One of the most impactful moments in Blake’s career was a situation that demonstrated the immense power of trust. A client once entrusted his firm with a P110 million deposit, without any formal contract. “This effectively demonstrates the power and speed of trust,” he remarked. This moment left a lasting impact on Atty. Blake, underscoring the responsibility and privilege that comes with being a trusted advisor. For him, trust is more than a professional standard—it’s the foundation of his entire practice, built through years of integrity and commitment to clients’ best interests.

Balancing Law with Life

The demands of the legal profession can be intense, and Blake has found balance by focusing on personal growth and renewal. Inspired by Stephen Covey’s concept of “sharpening the saw” from The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, he prioritizes self-renewal. This practice has allowed him to maintain clarity, resilience, and a positive outlook on both his work and his personal life.

“By developing the habit of sharpening the saw or self-renewal, I’m able to sustain a balanced life and well-being,” he explained. Blake’s emphasis on self-care serves as a reminder to other professionals that maintaining mental and physical health is crucial to long-term success.

Grateful for the Journey

Looking back on his career, Blake has no regrets. “I am extremely grateful for all the things I had experienced, learned, unlearned, and relearned from life’s everyday teachings,” he reflected. He approaches each experience, challenge, and success as a building block, helping him grow personally and professionally. For Blake, life’s journey is continuous learning, with each lesson contributing to his development and capacity to serve others.

Advice for Aspiring Lawyers

When asked for advice to young lawyers, Blake’s message was clear: “Since lawyering is a noble profession, one succeeds with oneself, with others, and with life, if one consistently extends, cultivates, restores, strengthens, and inspires trust.” For him, the heart of legal practice lies in building trust and maintaining integrity. He urges aspiring lawyers to be principle-centered, consistently embodying honesty, accountability, and ethical responsibility.

Atty. Blake’s advice is both timeless and essential: trust, once established, can unlock new levels of success and fulfillment in a lawyer’s career. He sees law not merely as a profession but as a vocation, a path to serving others and creating positive change.

A Career Rooted in Purpose, Transformation, and Trust

Blake Feken’s story is one of dedication, resilience, and unwavering integrity. From his early days as an associate lawyer to his current role in real estate services, he has built a career centered on trust, innovation, and transformative solutions. His journey serves as an inspiring example for those entering the legal field, reminding them that success in law is not just about technical expertise but also about the values one brings to the practice.

In Atty. Blake’s view, the true essence of being a lawyer lies in cultivating trust and using one’s skills to bring about meaningful, positive outcomes. His commitment to his clients and personal growth exemplify what it means to succeed in law with integrity and purpose.

Atty. Blake Feken with Gus Agosto

Supreme Court Decision on Recognition of Foreign Divorce – Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General, G.R.186571

In the case of Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court addressed the requirements and procedures for recognizing a foreign divorce obtained by a Filipino citizen and a foreign spouse. The decision highlights the conditions under Philippine law for the judicial recognition of foreign divorce decrees and how such recognition must be sought.

Case Background

Gerbert R. Corpuz, a naturalized Canadian citizen, married Filipina Daisylyn Sto. Tomas in 2005. After discovering that Daisylyn was involved in an extramarital affair, Gerbert returned to Canada, where he filed for and obtained a divorce in 2006. Desiring to remarry in the Philippines, he sought to have the divorce decree recognized so he could lawfully remarry. However, Philippine law requires a judicial order for the recognition of a foreign divorce, prompting Gerbert to file a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for this purpose.

The RTC denied Gerbert’s petition, ruling that, under Article 26 of the Family Code, only the Filipino spouse may file for judicial recognition of the divorce. This provision allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if their foreign spouse has obtained a divorce abroad. Since Gerbert, the foreign spouse, filed the petition, the RTC ruled that he could not avail himself of this provision.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Requirements: Rule 108

The Supreme Court noted that changes in the civil registry must comply with strict jurisdictional and procedural requirements set by Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Article 412 stipulates that no entry in the civil register may be altered without a judicial order, while Rule 108 provides a special procedure for the judicial correction or cancellation of civil registry entries.

For the judicial recognition of foreign divorce, Rule 108 mandates the following:

The petition must be filed with the RTC in the province where the civil registry is located.
All interested parties, including the civil registrar, must be named as parties in the proceedings.
A notice of the time and place of the hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Since Gerbert’s petition did not fulfill these jurisdictional requirements, the Supreme Court could not consider it as a proper petition under Rule 108.

Recognition of Foreign Divorce under Rule 108

The Supreme Court clarified that the process for recognizing a foreign divorce decree can be integrated within a Rule 108 proceeding. This would avoid the need for separate proceedings, one for recognizing the foreign divorce and another for correcting or canceling civil registry entries. Rule 108 provides an avenue to establish the legal status or rights of a party and can serve as an adversarial proceeding to test the validity of a foreign judgment, especially in terms of jurisdictional issues, notice, fraud, collusion, or legal mistakes.

Conclusion

This case underscores that for a foreign divorce to be legally recognized in the Philippines, especially where one party is a Filipino citizen, it is necessary to meet procedural requirements under Rule 108. While foreign divorces can be recognized, they must be pursued by the Filipino spouse and follow the jurisdictional prerequisites to be effective in altering civil registry entries. This decision reiterates the importance of due process and adherence to procedural requirements in ensuring that foreign judgments are accurately and fairly integrated into Philippine civil law.

Link to the case: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/54282

Passion and Purpose (First of two parts)

The Inspiring Story of Atty. Filomeno A. Arteche III

For over four decades, Atty. Filomeno A. Arteche III has dedicated his life to the legal profession. His journey, marked by dedication, discipline, and an unbreakable commitment to excellence, has led him to represent some of the Philippines’ most notable figures, from Ramon Ang of San Miguel Corporation to the renowned architect Jun Palafox. Today, he stands as one of the most respected figures in private practice, but behind the titles and accolades, he is a family man, a mentor, and a person who values life’s simpler pleasures. Here, Atty. Arteche reflects on his career, the influences that shaped him, and the lessons he wishes to pass on to aspiring lawyers.

Early Beginnings

Atty. Arteche’s path to the legal profession was inspired by his father, a former mayor of Tacloban City and past president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Leyte Chapter. “I knew in high school that I would be a lawyer,” he recalls. His father’s influence was profound, taking him to court hearings and client meetings, sparking in him a fascination with the legal process. Coming from a family with a strong legal tradition, including two lawyer siblings, he pursued his ambition with vigor.

He began his academic journey as a top student, graduating as the valedictorian of his pre-law class at the University of the Philippines. In law school, he continued to excel, graduating as second honor from the Ateneo de Manila School of Law in 1981. His commitment to hard work and diligence laid the foundation for a successful legal career that spans more than four decades.

Career and Growth

Atty. Arteche launched his legal career with the prestigious Angara, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz (ACCRA) Law Offices, where he worked as a Junior Associate for 14 years. His early experiences provided a wealth of knowledge, but it was also during this time that he honed his specialization and became a recognized expert in litigation and corporate law.

Later, he transitioned to corporate roles, serving as Corporate Secretary, Legal Counsel, and Personnel Manager at Philippine Solid Finance and Credit Corporation and as a Corporate Lawyer for Philippine Investment Management Consultants, Inc. (PHINMA). By 2003, he established his firm, Filomeno A. Arteche III and Associates, embodying his entrepreneurial spirit and desire to chart his path in the legal world.

A Day in the Life of a Lawyer

As a seasoned litigator, Atty. Arteche spends much of his day in court, meticulously reviewing cases, jurisprudence, and strategies. His day begins with a clear plan, reviewing schedules and visualizing the tasks ahead. “In life, there must be a plan,” he emphasizes, reflecting his disciplined approach. Whether preparing for a court appearance or strategizing with clients, he is deeply committed to his work, driven by a desire to achieve the best outcomes for those he represents.

Memorable Cases and Professional Impact

One significant moment in his career was defending a mayor from Sagiaran, Lanao del Sur, who had been wrongly accused and included in a “narco list” of the Duterte Administration. Facing immense pressure, Atty. Arteche handled media interviews and worked tirelessly to clear his client’s name. Cases like these, where trust and integrity were on the line, shaped his view on the importance of being a trustworthy advocate.

He also recounts an early encounter with a prominent client, the owner of PHINMA, wearing an exquisite Patek Philippe watch. The moment left an impression on the young Arteche, symbolizing the rewards that hard work and dedication could bring. Today, he proudly owns six Patek Philippe watches, a reminder of the goals he set for himself early in his career.

Balancing Career and Family Life

For Atty. Arteche, family comes second only to God. He proudly speaks of his achievements, not in terms of wealth but in the memories he has created with his family. A memorable example is the time he took his entire family, including in-laws and grandchildren, on a European vacation, following a successful case. “Money can still be recovered, but the bonding, the memory—you cannot buy that,” he says. His family’s happiness and well-being remain his top priority, and he is proud to see all his children now as successful professionals and businesspeople.

He is deeply involved in the Rotary, an organization dedicated to community service, where he actively contributes to helping those in need, particularly the less fortunate. For him, the true essence of making a difference does not lie in holding a political office. He believes that one does not need to be a politician to make a meaningful impact on others’ lives. He is critical of politics, viewing it not only as a chaotic environment but also as a field where corruption often prevails. His passion for community service remains rooted in direct action and philanthropy rather than in the political arena.

Reflections and Regrets

Looking back, Atty. Arteche’s only regret is that his father did not live to see his success. While his mother witnessed and celebrated his achievements, he wishes his father could have been there to see how his influence and mentorship shaped him into the lawyer he became. He values hard work and independence, not relying on inheritance but on personal dedication and a drive to succeed.

Advice for Aspiring Lawyers

For those considering a career in law, Atty. Arteche offers several guiding principles. “Lawyering is a noble profession,” he says, emphasizing the need for passion, commitment, and discipline. He advises aspiring lawyers to develop “Smooth Interpersonal Relationships” (SIR), avoid arrogance, and cultivate good public relations. Personal presentation also matters; he believes a lawyer should always present themselves professionally, starting with a well-tailored barong.

Networking and community service are equally important. By joining civic organizations and serving the community, lawyers can build a reputation that extends beyond the courtroom. Atty. Arteche believes success is a matter of attitude as much as aptitude. “Remember, it’s not simply your aptitude but your attitude that will determine your altitude in life,” he shares.

Legacy and Living Life Fully

At the core of Atty. Arteche’s philosophy is the belief that life is about choices. His journey exemplifies resilience, dedication, and a passion for the law, shaped by the people he has served and the family he cherishes. Beyond his professional accomplishments, he is proud to be a caring son, loving husband, proud father, doting grandfather, reliable brother, and loyal friend.

Atty. Arteche’s story serves as an inspiration, not only for lawyers but for anyone who values hard work, integrity, and family. His advice and example underscore the belief that a life well-lived is one dedicated to both professional excellence and personal fulfillment. (To be continued)

Leaving the Shore: A Challenge to Aspiring Lawyers (Second of two parts)

The phrase “You cannot discover a new ocean unless you have the courage to leave the shore” is a wisdom that resonates deeply in the journey of Atty. Filomeno A. Arteche III, who for over four decades has exemplified what it means to leave the “shore” in pursuit of excellence and truth in the legal profession.

From his early days as a young lawyer, Atty. Arteche embarked on a path marked by dedication, discipline, and a relentless commitment to his principles. Throughout his career, he has represented high-profile clients, including Ramon Ang of San Miguel Corporation and the distinguished architect Jun Palafox. His extensive body of work, integrity, and precision have earned him not only respect in private practice but also a revered place as a mentor and family man. But behind his notable success lies the courage to venture beyond familiar terrain and tackle challenging cases and complex issues.

The Shore of Comfort and the Call to Adventure in Law

For aspiring lawyers, the “shore” symbolizes the structured world of academia and the comfort zone of established routines. The journey of law school, internships, and initial years in practice can create a sense of safety, but true growth only begins when one dares to move beyond these boundaries. For Atty. Arteche, the willingness to lose sight of the shore meant immersing himself fully in cases that tested his skill, challenged his values, and demanded his utmost perseverance. His career is a testament to the rewards of leaving the shore, marked by high-profile cases that required meticulous legal strategy, compassion, and integrity.

Atty. Arteche’s life story offers rich lessons for those just beginning their legal careers. His dedication to excellence didn’t mean a pursuit of accolades alone but rather a steadfast commitment to his clients and the ethical foundations of the profession. Atty. Arteche’s path involved facing unknowns, embracing failure as part of growth, and continuously expanding his capabilities. For aspiring lawyers, his life underscores that leaving the shore is about more than risk; it’s about discovering new capacities within oneself, refining professional values, and committing to justice even in complex, high-stakes situations.

Embracing the Ocean

Pursue Purpose Over Comfort: Atty. Arteche’s journey reflects the value of purpose over convenience. Young lawyers should choose paths that challenge them and align with their core principles, recognizing that real growth often requires leaving behind the predictable.

Commit to Lifelong Learning: Just as Atty. Arteche honed his skills and knowledge over decades, aspiring lawyers must approach their careers as continuous journeys, always seeking to improve and expand their understanding.

Seek Mentorship and Build Character: Known as a mentor, Atty. Arteche exemplifies how guidance from experienced lawyers can provide invaluable insights and shape a young lawyer’s approach to challenges.

Balance Work with Life’s Simple Joys: Beyond the courtroom, Atty. Arteche is a family man and a person who values simplicity. His life reminds young lawyers that while dedication to the profession is vital, finding balance and joy in personal life is equally important.

Atty. Arteche’s career demonstrates that leaving the shore is not a one-time decision but a mindset that shapes a lifelong journey. His willingness to take on some of the country’s most complex cases and his dedication to his clients, family, and community have solidified his legacy in the legal profession. Aspiring lawyers who look to his example will find not only inspiration but also a roadmap for building a career marked by integrity, resilience, and a deep sense of purpose.

As the words remind us, “discovering a new ocean” requires a boldness to face unknown challenges. Atty. Arteche’s story illustrates that for those in the legal profession, stepping beyond the shore isn’t just about professional success; it’s about becoming a lawyer who embodies excellence, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to justice.

Read the first part, here is the link https://abagosto.com/2024/11/13/passion-and-purpose/