What is love?

Law Student: If love is tangible, it can be available for seizure because it can commit a crime. It can commit piracy for the same can invade another couple's ship. It can commit treason and break a couple's allegiance thereof. It can suddenly abduct without the privilege of Habeas corpus And worst of all it can murder you, aggravated by treachery, cruelty, ignominy and with evident premeditation.

Source: Unknown

10 Things you will give up for Law School

10 Things you will give up for Law school

The no. 1 problem of students in studying the law is being “Time Constraint”. Students whine and curse law professors because of the unbelievable workload they give. Sometimes I even wish vampires are real and I’m one of them, so I don’t have to sleep at all and I’ll have all the time to read or I have Hermoine Granger’s time-turner so I could control time.

To cope up with this problem, Students will have give up few things to allot time for studying. Here are the some things you have to say goodbye once you’re in law school.

1. Sleep- this is prolly the first thing you’ll ever give up. You spend the night reading cases or books instead of sleeping. My Professor once said that “In law School, Sleep is a luxury”

2. Watching TV- Yes, no more TVs. No more watching TV series, Say Goodbye to glee, The Tyra Banks Show, TMZ, HBO and many many more. If you are responsible, you’ll only turn the TV to watch the news because it is important to know what’s going on and it’s the only program that’ll provide something that is related to school.

3. Hobby- My hobby is to read novels. I love reading. Now I can’t do it anymore. But reading cases especially civil cases, is like reading short stories as well. So I get entertained and I learn at the same time by reading them.

4. Weekend Parties- you’ll be so tired to attend parties for sure. You’ll give them up for a goodnight sleep or just spend time with your family or special someone instead.

5. Movie Marathons-I used to be updated with movies. I watch every good movie whenever I have the time on DVD’s or on big screen. Now even if I have the time, watching movies are no longer on my list anymore.

6. Coffee hour- you’ll hardly find the time to see your girlfriends now. So no more coffee hour, shopping, etc. with them for a long time. I get to see my girlfriends only during semester break or summer vacation. Luckily you’ll find new friends in law school. They will be your new mates. And you’ll spend more time with them than your old friends.

7. Texting- I no longer spend time sending group messages to friends or chatting with them in texts. Sometimes when I’m busy reading, I don’t even bother reading texts, to avoid getting distracted.

8. Job- I know a number of students who gave up their job to give 100% of their attention to the legal study.

9. Facebook- Do you spend 2-3 hours of your time in facebook every day? Well, bid your Farmville farewell or whatever games and applications you have in facebook because these addicting games will eat so much of your time.

10. Old Clothes- Well when I said old clothes, I didn’t mean you’ll throw everything in your closet. It’s just that you will have to undergo wardrobe revamp and try as early as now, to dress up well and look sophisticated to fit in the legal community. In my case, I no longer wear rubber shoes that much, Majority of my clothes are now dresses. My boyish style can no longer be seen nowadays. :)

Francisco vs. House of Representeatives G.R. No. 160261

FACTS: Within a period of 1 year, 2 impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The justiciable controversy in this case was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing of a second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for by law.


ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the House of Representatives is constitutional, and whether the resolution thereof is a political question — h; as resulted in a political crisis.

HELD: Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representativesare unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

REASONING:In passing over the complex issues arising from the controversy, this Court is ever mindful of the essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government by no means prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that part of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people.


At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances which has been carefully calibrated by the Constitution to temper the official acts of each of these three branches must be given effect without destroying their indispensable co-equality. There exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat another." Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it bythe Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. Thus when a proposal reached the floor proposing that "A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary… to initiate impeachment proceedings," this was met by a proposal to delete the line on the ground that the vote of the House does not initiate impeachment proceeding but rather the filing of a complaint does.

Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period.

The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the main issue of whether the impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor indiscriminately turnjusticiable issues out of decidedly political questions. Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other two great branches of the government.

To see the original copy of this case, follow this link

North cotabato vs. GRP gr no. 183591

FACTS: The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) brought about by the Government of the republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as an aspect of Tripoli Agreement of Peace in 2001 is scheduled to be signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
This agreement was petitioned by the Province of North Cotabato for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The agreement mentions "Bangsamoro Juridical Entity" (BJE) to which it grants the authority and jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro; authority and jurisdiction over all natural resources within internal waters. The agreement is composed of two local statutes: the organic act for autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA).

ISSUE: Whether or not the GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and Whether or not the MOA-AD brought by the GRP and MILF is constitutional

HELD:GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and it are unconstitutional because it is contrary to law and the provisions of the constitution thereof.

REASONING: The GRP is required by this law to carry out public consultations on both national and local levels to build consensus for peace agenda and process and the mobilization and facilitation of people’s participation in the peace process.

Article III (Bill of Rights)

Sec. 7. The right of people on matters of public concern shall be recognized, access to official records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

Article II
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law , that state adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

LGC (1991), “require all national agencies and officers to conduct periodic consultations. No project or program be implemented unless such consultations are complied with and approval mus be obtained.”

Article VII (Executive Department)

Sec. 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

Article X. (Local Government)

Sec. 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the province, cities, municipalities and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions on Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera as hereinafter provided.


Sec. 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

Section 16. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.


Sec. 18. The creation of autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the constituents units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities and geographic areas voting favourably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region.

Sec. 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over:
1. Administrative organization;
2. Creation of sources of revenues;
3. Ancestral domain and natural resources;
4. Personal, family, and property relations;
5. Regional urban and rural planning development;
6. Economic, social, and tourism development;
7. Educational policies;
8. Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and
9. Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.

The President has sole authority in the treaty-making.

ARTICLE XVII (AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS)

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
2. A constitutional convention.

Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.


MOA-AD states that all provisions thereof which cannot be reconciled with the present constitution and laws “shall come into force upon signing of a comprehensive compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to the legal framework.” The president’s authority is limited to proposing constitutional amendments. She cannot guarantee to any third party that the required amendments will eventually be put in place nor even be submitted to a plebiscite. MOA-AD itself presents the need to amend therein.

**To see the original copy of this case, follow this link

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 119190

FACTS: Chi MinTsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi were married for 10 months. But still their marriage was not consummated because the husband refuses to have sexual intercourse with his spouse. Even if she already made efforts, they still failed to consummate their marriage by performing coitus. The spouses decided to undergo a medical check up to see if there was something wrong with them. The Doctor found out that there was nothing wrong with their organs and that the man was not impotent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is psychological incapacity, which may be a ground for annulment, in the light of Article 36 of the Family Code.

HELD: The issue of whether or not the appellant is psychologically incapacitated to discharge a basic marital obligation was resolved upon a review of both the documentary and testimonial evidence on record. Appellant admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical disability. Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of this Court clearly demonstrates an 'utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage' within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code (See Santos vs. Court of Appeals)

REASONING: If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity.

** To see the original copy of this case follow this link

Aruego vs. CA G.R. No. 112193

PROCEDURAL FACTS: Case filed by therein petitioners for compulsory Recognition and Enforcement of Successional Rights was filed before Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila which granted them their equal share in the succional rights of all the heirs.
SUBSTANTIVE FACTS: Antonia Aruego and her sister Evelyn filed a petition in the courts seeking Jose Aruego, Jr. And his five minor children to recognize them as illegitimate children and compulsory heirs of Jose who died on March 30, 1982. They claim there is open and continuous possession of status of illegitimate children of Jose who had an amorous relationship with their mother Luz Fabian until the time of his death. The court declared that Antonia Aruego is an illegitimate daughter of the deceased with Luz Fabian while Evelyn is not. Antonia and Evelyn contested the decision citing provisions of the Family Code particularly Art. 127 on Filiation, Art. 172 on illegitimate children’s filiation, and Art. 256 on the retroactivity of the code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the provisions of the Family Code be applied retroactively and will it impair the vested rights of the respondents?

HELD: the Family Code shall not be applied retroactively

REASONING: The meaning of vested and acquired rights under Art. 256 was not defined by the Family Code, hence the court will determine it according to issues submitted to them. The action must be governed by Art. 285 of the Civil Code and not by Art. 175 (2) of the Family Code. The present law cannot be given any retroactive effect since its application is prejudicial under Art. 285.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the court of appeals decision.

To see the original copy of this case follow this link

Atienza vs Brillantes 243 SCRA 32

Topic: Retroactive effects of law

SF: An administrative case was filed by herein complainant against Judge Brilliantes of MTC, Manila. Complainant alleges that he has two children with De Castro who stays in Makati, Manila in the house he bought and stayed while he is in Manila. Sometime in 1991 he saw Respondent Judge sleeping on his bed, upon inquiry, he was told by the houseboy that respondent was cohabiting with De Castro. Complainant further alleged that respondent was married to a certain Zenaida Ongkiko and begot five children.

In reply respondent alleged that the complainant was not married to De Castro, he also denied having been married to Zenaida ongkiko, however admitted having five children with her. He stated that the marriage between him and Ongkiko was not valid since there was no marriage license and further claimed that when he married De Castro he believed in all good faith of it’s intent and purpose.

I: Whether or not Article 40 of the Family Code that required nullity of previous marriage for purpose of remarriage shall apply?


H: As a general rule provided in Article 4 of the NCC: Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.

R: Article 40 of the Family Code provides that a Judicial Declaration of Nullity is required before a party can enter into second marriage however the said Code took effect only on August 3, 1988 and the marriages that respondent contracted was 1965 and 1991 however the provisions of this code shall apply regardless of the date of the marriage, besides under Article 256 of the Family Code, said Article is given “retroactive effects in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws” this is particularly true with Article 40 which is a rule of Procedure, herein respondent has not shown any vested rights that was impaired by the application of Article 40 ti his case.

**To see the legends of this case follow this link