“If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.”
(Chua Qua vs. Clave, G.R. No.
45949, August 30, 1990)
“….there can be no love where respect is gone.”
(People vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 130607. November 17, 1999)
“… sorrow is sometimes a
touchstone of love.”
(Libi vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70890. September 18, 1992.]
“… love is not a license for lust.”
(People
vs. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011)
“Love happens to everyone. It is dubbed to be
boundless as it goes beyond the expectations people tagged with it. In love,
“age does matter.” People love in order to be secure that one will share
his/her life with another and that he/she will not die alone. Individuals who
are in love had the power to let love grow or let love die – it is a choice one
had to face when love is not the love he/she expected.” (Padilla-Rumbaua v.
Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738, August 14, 2009)
“Every
man has a right to build, keep and be favored with a good name.”
(Brillante vs. CA, G.R. No. 118757 and 121571, October 19, 2004)
(Brillante vs. CA, G.R. No. 118757 and 121571, October 19, 2004)
“Liberty is a right that inheres in every one of us as a member of the
human family. When a person is deprived of his right, all of us are diminished
and debased for liberty is total and indivisible.”
(Ordonez v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 115576,
August 4 1994)
“One unavoidable consequence of everyone having the
freedom to choose is that others may make different choices – choices we would
not make for ourselves, choices we may disapprove of, even choices that may shock
or offend or anger us. However,
choices are not to be legally prohibited merely because they are different, and
the right to disagree and debate about important questions of public policy is
a core value protected by our Bill of Rights. Indeed, our democracy is built on
genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and difference in
opinion. “
(ANG LADLAD LGBT Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582. April 8, 2010)
“…… man stands accountable to an authority higher than the State.” (Estrada vs Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651. August
4, 2003)
“….the
real essence of justice does not emanate from quibblings over patchwork legal
technicality. It proceeds
from the spirit's gut consciousness of the dynamic role of law as a brick in
the ultimate development of the social edifice."
(Obosa vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
114350. January 16, 1997.)
“The Court, like all well-meaning
persons, has no desire to dash romantic fancies, yet in the exercise of its
duty, is all too willing when necessary to raise the wall that tears Pyramus
and Thisbe asunder.“ (Concerned
Employee vs. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, AM No. P-02-1564, 23, November 2004)
“The nuptial vows which solemnly intone the
matrimonial promise of love ‘(f)or better or for worse, for richer or for
poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part,’ are sometimes easier
said than done, for many a marital union figuratively ends on the reefs of
matrimonial shoals.
(People of the Philippines vs.
Ruben Takbobo, GR No. 102984, 30 June 1993)
The
silence often of pure innocence persuades when speaking fails. (People of the Phil. vs. Romy L. Fallones, G.R. No. 190341, March
16, 2011)
“Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom
the state believes are deserving of the privilege. It is a “precious heritage, as well as
an inestimable acquisition,” that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by
those who enjoy it or by those who dispute it.” (Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434. March
3, 2004).
“The autonomy and
importance of family should not be privileged over the privacy and autonomy of
a person. Marriage is not bondage that subordinates the humanity of each
spouse. No person should be deemed to concede her or his privacy rights and
autonomy upon getting married.”
(Imbong vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)
“ Law has also been
defined as “something men create in their best moments to protect themselves in
their worst moments.” Even then, laws are subject
to amendment or repeal just as judicial pronouncements are subject to
modification and reversal to better reflect the public morals of a society at a
given time. After all, “the
life of the law... has been experience….”
(Estrada vs Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651. August
4, 2003)
