Purchasing a land is a wise investment if the transaction is smooth and hassle-free. What if your hard-earned money went down the drain upon discovering that the parcel of land you have purchased was also sold to another buyer? It even gets more complicated as you are no longer allowed to transfer the title of the property in your name because the other buyer already did so. What are the legal implications of these circumstances? It is clear that the property was sold to two buyers with different interests, hence there is a double sale. Article 1544 of the Civil Code states that:

If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

In case of double sale the person who will be considered as the owner of the property will be based on the order of priority:

1. the first person to register the sale in good faith;
   
   
2. the first possessor in good faith;
   
   
3. the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title.

There can be cases when you are the first possessor of the property, but the other claimant was the first registrant. While it may appear that the other claimant is the rightful owner of the property, you should take a few factors into consideration. As part of the aforementioned conditions, the person who registers the sale in good faith will be deemed as the property owner. In the event that the other claimant purchased the property even when he/she had full knowledge that it was previously sold to another buyer, the first buyer will be entitled to prove that he/she has a better right to own the property.

If the other claimant who has already registered the property proved that he/she is a registrant in good faith, then he/she has a better right to the property according to Article 1544 of the Civil Code. The seller has legal liability, which gives you the authority to file chargers and demand contract rescission with damages.

Social networks have been considered a boon of everyone’s existence as they provide an electronic avenue for expressions and a way to connect with friends and loved ones. Facebook in particular has billions of users and because of its powerful impact, anyone can be exposed to cybercrimes. A private individual can become an instant celebrity if another person recognizes either his good or bad deed, thanks to your mobile phone’s ability to capture the pleasant and not-so-pleasant moments. Due to Facebook’s vast reach, it is easy to build or destroy one’s reputation at the drop of a hat. Sadly, exercising your right to free speech often blurs the line between expression and imputation. Is there such a thing as Facebook etiquette? Do we really have to exercise our freedom of speech regardless of the consequences?

Libeling a public official versus libeling a private individual

Mudslinging has been part of the country’s political culture and when the public officials or public figures have been dragged into shame, most of them will cry foul and resort to filing a libel case to the person behind the malicious statement. However, before a public official can file a case, the libel needs to hold water. The burden of proof will definitely lie with the offended party as he needs to prove that there is indeed a “higher standard of actual malice”. If the offended party is a private individual, the burden of proof is with the accused. This means the accused needs to prove that he has justifiable reason for the defamatory statement even if there is truth to it.

Although truth can be used as a defense, it does not necessarily exempt the accused from the crime of libel. The Supreme Court requires the accused to show “good motives and justifiable ends” for truth to become a valid defense.  For libel committed online, the author of the offending article will be held liable. When a libelous statement is posted on Facebook, the acts of liking, sharing or commenting do not fall under cyber libel. Does that mean an individual can share a libelous post without facing any legal consequences? It is interesting to note that sharing a post and creating a new story to support the statement of the original post can still hold a person liable. For instance, the original author posts “ John is a wife beater” and another person shares the post with a new story that says “he is also a murderer”, this can be considered as another libelous statement despite the fact that he was not the original author.

Aside from libel, there are other ways a person can get sued on Facebook:

•    Copyright Infringement-when a copyrighted material is posted by others without permission from the original author, the individual who posted the content can be liable for copyright infringement.  It is considered an infringement even if it was only shared with a few Facebook friends.

•    Privacy-posting private information of others such as photos can be considered a violation especially when such posts have enabled others to tag or share.

•    Harassment-when someone behaves in a manner that is deemed threatening or intrusive, the person can be sued for harassment. Facebook is a viable platform for harassment and if a person breaks into another person’s account and pretends as the real account user, this act can pass itself off as Facebook harassment.  Unfortunately, harassment can be subjective as one person may believe he has been harassed and another might not.

•    Breach of Contract-although this violation has a very broad area, an individual who talks about work on Facebook even if he has agreed to company rules and regulations may also be liable for breaching the contract.

Fast food has become a staple diet for busy people especially when time is not enough for food preparation. What could be worse than sinking your teeth into your favorite food, unperturbed to the fact that it is crawling with germs? You have already consumed and digested your meal before discovering that there is an additional “ingredient”, which is, without a doubt, a recipe for disaster. A person will more likely choose to starve to death than eat contaminated food. There have been several complaints about food poisoning and unsafe food handling practices. While some complainants are already well-aware of the steps to take, others still need guidance so their complaints will not end up falling on deaf ears. 

The Republic Act No. 10611 otherwise known as the “Food Safety Act of 2013” strengthens food safety regulatory system in our country. The law provides protection to consumers so they will have access to local foods and food products that have undergone thorough and rigid inspection. 

Under Section 3 of the Republic Act, the objectives are as follows:

“(a) Protect the public from food-borne and water-borne illnesses and unsanitary, unwholesome, misbranded or adulterated foods;

(b) Enhance industry and consumer confidence in the food regulatory system; and

(c) Achieve economic growth and development by promoting fair trade practices and sound regulatory foundation for domestic and international trade.”

The food safety regulatory system combines various processes to ensure that food safety standards are met. Food safety standards refer to the formal documents, which contain the food requirements that the food processors need to comply with so human health is safeguarded. These safety standards are implemented by law and authorities. Some of the processes that are under the regulatory system include inspection, testing, data collection, monitoring and other activities, which are carried out by various food safety regulatory agencies. 

Under Section No. 37, these acts are prohibited:

(a) Produce, handle or manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the Philippines any food or food product which is not in conformity with an applicable food quality or safety standard promulgated in accordance with this Act.

(b) Produce, handle or manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the Philippines any food or food product which has been declared as banned food product;

(c) Refuse access to pertinent records or entry of inspection officers of the FSRA;

(d) Fail to comply with an order relating to notifications to recall unsafe products;

(e) Adulterate, misbrand, mislabel, falsely advertise any food product which misleads the consumers and carry out any other acts contrary to good manufacturing practices;

(f) Operate a food business without the appropriate authorization;

(g) Connive with food business operators or food inspectors, which will result in food safety risks to the consumers; and

(h) Violate the implementing rules and regulations of this Act