SY & PARTNERS
(A Member Firm of Nishimura & Asahi)
Local Experience.
International Expertise.
Sy & Partners, in strategic alliance with the international law firm Nishimura and Asahi, offers tailored legal solutions that combine local knowledge with international best practices and experience to cater to your commercial and legal needs.
Awards and Updates
Sy & Partners is proud to announce that Atty. Glenn Tuazon has been recognized as Top Litigator of the Year during the 9th GLA Global Arbitration and Litigation Conference 2026, held in Bangkok, Thailand.
Sy & Partners has been recognized by Asia Business Law Journal as a winner at the 2025 Philippines Law Firm Awards in Japan Practice and Private Equity & Venture Capital, reinforcing the firm’s strength in complex cross border transactions.
Newsletter
Latest News
Written by Glenn Tuazon
Most businesses do not spend much time thinking about disputes until one lands on their desk.
That is understandable. Management’s focus should be on running and growing the business. But the disputes we are seeing today look very different from those we saw even a few years ago.
In 2026, three trends stand out. They affect how disputes arise, how they are fought, and often, who wins.
1. Documents Matter More Than Ever
Companies often assume that disputes are won by having the better legal argument. In practice, they are usually won by having the better documents.
As courts and tribunals become increasingly comfortable with electronic evidence and digital processes, emails, chat messages, internal reports, and electronic approvals are playing a central role in disputes.
We regularly see situations where a company’s position is sound, but critical emails cannot be located, key personnel have left the organization, or no one can explain the context behind an important decision made years earlier.
The issue is not always the absence of evidence. More often, it is the inability to preserve it, locate it, or explain it.
Three practical steps:
First, review your document retention practices. Many companies have retention policies on paper but inconsistent implementation in practice. Make sure important project files, approvals, contracts, board materials, and correspondence can still be located years later.
Second, implement litigation holds early. Once a dispute becomes reasonably foreseeable, companies should take steps to preserve potentially relevant documents before they are routinely deleted, overwritten, or lost. Waiting until a complaint is filed may be too late.
Third, preserve institutional knowledge, not just documents. An email often tells only part of the story. Someone must still be able to explain what happened, why a decision was made, and what the parties understood at the time. Just as importantly, those individuals are often the ones who can identify the relevant documents in the first place. When key employees leave, companies should consider whether important project histories, negotiations, and dispute-sensitive matters have been properly documented before that knowledge walks out the door.
The takeaway: Winning a dispute often starts years before the dispute is filed.
2. Compliance Problems Are Turning Into Disputes
Some of the biggest disputes today do not start as disputes.
They start as a whistleblower complaint. A data incident. An employee concern. A governance issue. A regulatory inquiry.
Businesses today face increasing expectations relating to transparency, reporting, disclosure, and data governance. As a result, issues that once remained internal are more likely to lead to litigation, arbitration, regulatory proceedings, or investigations.
Most companies already know compliance is important. But the more useful question is whether the organization can identify and respond to problems before they escalate.
Three practical steps:
First, establish a clear escalation process. Employees should know where concerns are reported, and management should know who is responsible for assessing them. Many disputes become expensive simply because warning signs were ignored, misunderstood, or passed between departments.
Second, investigate early. Delay can become a source of liability in its own right. In employment matters, for example, delays in addressing complaints or delays in constituting the proper investigating body may themselves create legal exposure. The same principle applies elsewhere. The earlier a company understands the facts, the more options it has to manage risk.
Third, document the company’s response. Sometimes the most important fact is not whether a complaint ultimately proved true or false. It is whether the company responded appropriately after learning about it. In many situations, the fact that the company acted, investigated, and followed a proper process can help avoid separate claims arising from inaction itself. In employment disputes, for example, a prompt and properly documented response may help defend against allegations that the employer failed to provide a safe and workable environment.
The takeaway: Compliance is not simply about satisfying regulators. It is often the first line of defense against disputes.
3. More Investment Means More Disputes
The Philippine government continues to encourage investment and business expansion through various economic and investment initiatives.
This means more acquisitions, more joint ventures, more strategic partnerships, and more commercial relationships. Wherever there is investment, disputes inevitably follow.
But many of the most significant disputes do not arise during the transaction itself. They emerge one, three, or five years later.
By then, management teams may have changed, memories have faded, and key personnel may no longer be around. Yet the parties are suddenly trying to reconstruct what was said, promised, or disclosed years earlier.
Three practical steps:
First, document key assumptions before signing. If an issue is important enough to be discussed during negotiations, it is important enough to appear in the transaction documents. Parties often spend months discussing a particular risk, assumption, or expectation, only for it to disappear from the final contracts. Years later, no one remembers the conversation. If a point matters, make sure it is reflected in a representation, warranty, disclosure, covenant, recital, or another contractual provision.
Second, treat due diligence as a dispute-prevention exercise, not a deal-closing exercise. The objective is not simply to complete the transaction. It is to identify issues that may become tomorrow’s claims. The uncomfortable questions are often the ones that matter most.
Third, maintain a post-closing record. Important disclosures, transition arrangements, management decisions, and communications should be organized and retained. When disputes arise years later, these materials often become some of the most persuasive evidence available.
The takeaway: Most investment-related disputes are won or lost long before the statement of claim is filed.
Final Thoughts
The most important dispute development in 2026 is not a single law or court decision. It is the changing nature of disputes themselves.
Businesses today face disputes that are more document-driven, more compliance-related, and more closely tied to investment activity than ever before.
The response is straightforward: preserve documents, preserve knowledge, investigate issues early, and document important decisions before they become contested facts.
Those steps are not complicated. But they often make the difference between entering a dispute from a position of strength and spending years trying to reconstruct what happened after the fact.
A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC (7 October 2026) Asia Newsletter (Philippines – Sy & Partners)
A Filipino seeking recognition of a foreign divorce from a foreign spouse no longer needs to prove the foreign divorce law. Under amendments to Rules 39, 131 and 132 of the Rules of Court (the “Amendments”) approved by the Supreme Court on 7 October 2026, a foreign divorce granted without restriction or qualification is presumed to capacitate the foreign spouse to remarry. The Amendments take effect on 31 October 2026.
The Amendments do not legalize divorce in the Philippines. They only make it easier for a Filipino spouse to have a valid foreign divorce recognized under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
| A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC | |
| Section | Details |
| Background | The Philippines and the Vatican are the only countries whose laws do not allow divorce. However, under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, if a Filipino is married to a foreigner and a valid foreign divorce capacitates the foreign spouse to remarry, the Filipino spouse may also remarry. To rely on this, the Filipino spouse must have the divorce recognized by a Philippine court. Until now, the Filipino spouse had to prove both the divorce decree and the foreign divorce law. Proving the foreign law was often difficult and costly: laws may be scattered across jurisdictions, there is often no official custodian to certify them, and official English translations are rarely available. |
| Amendments | Presumption of capacity to remarry. A foreign divorce between a Filipino and a foreigner, granted without restriction or qualification by a competent foreign court or authority, is presumptive evidence that the foreign spouse may remarry (new Section 48-A, Rule 39; new Section 3(ll), Rule 131). Translations. A sworn English translation by a translator is presumed correct, unless contested through a contrary translation. Grounds to oppose. The divorce may be challenged for want of jurisdiction, want of notice, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Foreign law for the oppositor. A party opposing the divorce may prove the foreign law through a certified copy from the Office of the Court Administrator’s repository of foreign laws (Section 24, Rule 132). |
| Effectivity | 31 October 2026. |
1. What this means
- No separate proof of foreign divorce law. The divorce decree itself is enough to show that the foreign spouse may remarry. The Filipino spouse then gains the same capacity under Article 26(2). This should make recognition faster and cheaper, especially for overseas Filipinos.
- Burden shifts to the oppositor. The party opposing recognition, usually the State through the Office of the Solicitor General, must now present evidence to overcome the presumption.
- Court recognition is still required. The Amendments simplify the evidence, not the process. A petition for recognition must still be filed in a Philippine court. Until the divorce is recognized, the Filipino spouse remains married under Philippine records.
2. Points of caution
- The presumption can be rebutted. If the oppositor challenges it, the Filipino spouse may still need to prove the foreign law.
- Only unrestricted divorces. The presumption covers only divorces granted “without restriction or qualification,” which the Amendments do not define. A decree that is not yet final, is subject to a waiting period, or limits remarriage may still require proof of the foreign law.
- The decree must still be proven. The divorce decree must still be presented as an official foreign record, with an apostille or, for countries outside the Apostille Convention, a Philippine consular certificate.
- Filipino and foreigner only. The foreign spouse’s citizenship must still be proven. Case law still applies: Article 26(2) covers spouses who were both Filipinos at marriage where one later became a foreign citizen (Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, 5 October 2005), and divorces initiated by the Filipino spouse (Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018). A foreign divorce between two Filipinos is still not recognized.
- After recognition. The final court decision must be registered with the Local Civil Registrar and annotated on the marriage certificate issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority (“PSA”). The annotated PSA certificate is needed to remarry and to update records (i.e., passport, etc.).
Authors: Felix Sy and John Malcolm Aniag
DOJ Opinion No. 16, Series of 2026 (9 March 2026)
Written by: Felix T. Sy and John Malcolm Aniag
Asia Newsletter (Philippines – Sy & Partners)
A Land Transfer Clearance (“LTC”) from the Department of Agrarian Reform (“DAR”) is no longer a pre-requisite document to register transfers of private agricultural lands. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) ruled that the period for land acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as amended, (“CARL”), ended on 30 June 2014, and with it the retention limits that the LTC is meant to enforce.
ISSUE: Whether a LTC is still required to register transfers of private agricultural lands after the lapse of the CARL’s period for land acquisition and distribution
BACKGROUND: The CARL covers all public and private agricultural lands and limits a landowner’s retention to five (5) hectares, plus three (3) hectares for each qualified child. The LTC is the mechanism by which DAR confirms that a transfer does not breach these limits. The CARL originally provided a ten (10) – year implementation period. It also set 30 June 2014 as the final date for the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands.
DOJ RULING: The DOJ ruled that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (“CARP”) ceased to be effective as of 30 June 2014, and the CARL, including the retention limits, likewise ceased to be applicable. The DOJ concluded that, since the retention limits are no longer relevant or required, any requirement imposed on landowners under CARL such as securing an LTC before transferring private agricultural land, no longer has legal basis.
- What this means
a. Registration without LTC. Transfers of private agricultural land may be registered without first securing an LTC. This removes the DAR provincial office review of landholding limits that precedes the issuance of an LTC.
b. No five-hectare ceiling on transferees. The CARL retention limits would no longer be applicable. Thus, any buyer may acquire agricultural land in excess of five (5) hectares
c. Implementation by Registers of Deeds. The DOJ Opinion was addressed to the LRA, which supervises the Registers of Deeds. As of this writing, we have not seen a published LRA circular directing Registers of Deeds nationwide to stop requiring the LTC. Thus, practice may vary by registry. Parties may consider bringing a copy of the Opinion when filing documents for registration. - Related development: DAR’s draft administrative order
The Opinion follows an unnumbered AO signed by DAR Secretary Conrado M. Estrella III on 27 January 2026. The AO removed the DAR clearance requirement for (a) private agricultural lands not covered by a notice of acquisition as of 30 June 2014; and (b) lands awarded under Emancipation Patents (“EPs”) or Certificates of Land Ownership Award (“CLOAs”) after the ten (10)-year holding period.
Farmers’ groups, including the Magsasaka Party-List and the Federation of Free Farmers, have sought the AO’s withdrawal, estimating that it could affect about 1.2 million agrarian reform beneficiaries tilling about 1.8 million hectares. In April 2026, advocacy groups described the AO as officially unissued and non-final, pending consultation. In September 2026, DAR Undersecretary for Legal Affairs Napoleon Galit defended the AO and took the same position as the DOJ, that the five-hectare retention limit under Section 6 of the CARL has ceased to be applicable. - Points of caution
a. Advisory nature. Opinions of the Secretary of Justice guide executive agencies but do not bind the courts. The Opinion’s conclusion that all of CARL has ceased to be effective may still be contested, particularly by agrarian reform beneficiaries and farmers’ groups.
b. Lands with pending CARP proceedings. CARL allows any case or proceeding pending as of 30 June 2014 to proceed even beyond that date. In the case of Robustum Agricultural Corp. v. DAR (G.R. No. 221484, 19 November 2018), the Supreme Court ruled that 30 June 2014 is the final date for initiating land acquisition and distribution proceedings, not an absolute deadline for completing them. Lands issued a notice of coverage on or before that date may still be subject to CARP.
c. Awarded lands. The Opinion’s conclusion speaks of the retention limits and the LTC for private agricultural lands. It does not expressly address lands awarded under Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs), which remain subject to separate transfer restrictions and DAR rules.
d. Matters not addressed/covered. The Opinion does not address/cover the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, the rights of agricultural lessees under R.A. No. 3844 (including rights of pre-emption and redemption), or the constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership of land.
e. Practical steps. Before signing of the transaction documents or transaction closing, (1) confirm the requirements of the Register of Deeds where the land is located, and (2) check the land’s CARP status with the DAR provincial office. Transaction documents should consider and accordingly allocate the risk of a registry still requiring an LTC. While the DOJ Opinion provides the legal basis for dispensing with the DAR LTC requirement, we have not identified any LRA circular or memorandum implementing or cascading the Opinion to the Registers of Deeds. Pending such implementing issuance, a Register of Deeds may continue to require an LTC in practice.