Romantic outpouring of SC love letters: When ‘hugot lines’ blend well with court rulings

FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines–In an unexpected twist to a recent Supreme Court case, the justices surprised everyone by inserting lines of poetry to drive home their view on love and relationships.

And as part of the Valentine’s Day celebration, here are the updated “hugot lines” lifted from real Supreme Court decisions:

• Love is founded on a  promise: to seek beyond ourselves in order to enable and ennoble the other to continue to become the best version of themselves. (Rosanna L. Tan-Andal Vs. Mario Victor M. Andal G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021)

• Being in love can be carried on the wings of poetry, announced publicly through each other’s gazes. It is made real and felt with every act of unconditional care and comfort that the lover provides. Love can be beyond labels. (Rosanna L. Tan-Andal Vs. Mario Victor M. Andal G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021)

• Marriage is not compulsory when in love; neither does it create love. Nonetheless, it remains an institution designed to provide legal and public recognition that may be well deserved not only for the couple, but also for their families existing or yet to come. (Rosanna L. Tan-Andal Vs. Mario Victor M. Andal G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021)

• The choice of whether to marry–and necessarily, whom to marry–is a personal decision that a person makes for themself. This individual choice must be made, as much as possible, completely free from any external pressures. After all, marriage can and will change a person’s life. (Jhonna Guevarra et all, vs. Jan Banach,  G.R. No. 214016, November 24, 2021)

• We recognize instances when the breach of one’s commitment in an intimate relationship is a consequence of their realization that marriage may not be the wisest path they could take given their circumstances.

For this reason, litigation to the sorrows caused by a broken heart and a broken promise must be discouraged. (Jhonna Guevarra et all, vs. Jan Banach,  G.R. No. 214016, November 24, 2021)

• If he really loved her, the noblest thing he could have done was to walk away. (Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Atty. Leo J. Palma (AC 2474, September 15, 2004)

• Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say “I could not have cared less.” This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao- Tsoi, GR No. 119190, 16 January 1997)

• Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other’s feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.” (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao- Tsoi, GR No. 119190, 16 January 1997)

• The heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. (Chua-Qua vs. Clave, G.R. No. L-49549, 30 August 1990)

• One of the ironic verities of life, it has been said, is that sorrow is sometimes a touchstone of love. (Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70890, 18 September 1992)

• The absence of a few days between spouses may be tolerable, required by necessity. The absence of months may test one’s patience. But the absence of years of someone who made the solemn promise to stand by his partner in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, is intolerable. The waiting is as painful to the spirit as the endless search for a person that probably did not want to be found or could no longer be found. (Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Marvic Leonen on Republic of the Philippines vs. Maria Fe Espinosa Cantor G.R. 184621, December 10, 2013)

• We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any other reason.” (Patricia Figueroa vs. Simeon Barranco, Jr., GR No. 97369, 31 July 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)

• Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage. This sad truth has unsettled many a love transformed into matrimony. Any sort of deception between spouses, no matter the gravity, is always disquieting.(Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006)

• 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)

• The universal puff about love being free, doubtless a stale statement, remains a useful piece of legal advice yet for the roaming lothario, to stress that money in all its forms, the dowry included, is not the legitimate consideration for passion and affection which ordinarily spring from courtship and requited love, nor does it endow a license to subject the object of his affection to lewd desires. (People of the Philippines vs. Lito Egan alias Akiao, G.R. No. 139338. May 28, 2002)

RELATED STORIES:

‘Singing Kartero’ brings back ‘kilig’ on Valentine’s 

Taguig opens ‘Love at the Park’ on Valentine’s Day

What is Valentine’s Day for you?

JPV/abc