"a
writer takes his pen,
to write the words again, that all
in love is fair"
I know.. it's February. I think one of the most beautiful cases decided by the Supreme Court that inevitably touched on love was the Chua-Clave case.Not only was the decision penned by one of the greatest ponentes (decision writers) of all time (in the person of Justice Regalado), but also exemplified one of the foremost virtues of love, steadfastness.
The Chua case undeniably displayed a strong character of a woman willing to storm the rudiments of courts in order to regain her dignity.. and to prove once and for all that true love indeed could conquer all.
In the case at bar.. it's different. Reality takes it's course in the most unimaginable detour and stares you in the face, where the courts, though reluctant to tread on complex and subjective matters of the heart had no choice but to intervene, yet upon intervention conducted itself civil and carefully tip-toed its way as if it seems it was walking on glass.
But mind you, it was in this particular case where the Supreme Court was caught stating one of the most profoundly realistic 'love quote' that would stare at you and leave you hanging blanked face that is if you are that naive lacking the experience and knowledge of the sad realities of love.
An off-guard way of love it self slapping you and waking you up to one of its stark, not so glorious, other side attribute, that love is not merely endless bliss and happiness, neither a dreamy fairy tale story, nor a fragrant bed of roses. It doesn't always stand in fortitude, not always believing a noble victorious outcome as the Chua vs. Clave case, it doesn't always persevere. But it assures you that it is still there, that even the changing of words to one of the most respected legal maxims we legal minds hold dear, may still carry you through. Dura LOVE, sed LOVE... Love may be harsh.. but it is Love.
The present petition traces its roots to the petitioner Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua's complaint before the QC-RTC asking the court for a Declaration of Nullity of her marriage against the respondent Edward Rumbaua alleging among others that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage.
The court promulgated for her a favorable decision declaring her marriage to the respondent null and void on the ground of her husband's psychological incapacity. However, came this petition. Petitioner in this case challenges the 2004 decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed her favorable RTC ruling.
Here's the Facts antecedent to the case..
But mind you, it was in this particular case where the Supreme Court was caught stating one of the most profoundly realistic 'love quote' that would stare at you and leave you hanging blanked face that is if you are that naive lacking the experience and knowledge of the sad realities of love.
"Individuals who are in love had the power to let love grow or let love die. It’s a choice one had to face when love’s not the love he expected" – Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua v. Edward Rumbaua (GR No. 166738)
The court promulgated for her a favorable decision declaring her marriage to the respondent null and void on the ground of her husband's psychological incapacity. However, came this petition. Petitioner in this case challenges the 2004 decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed her favorable RTC ruling.
Here's the Facts antecedent to the case..
Petitioner related that she and the respondent were childhood neighbors in Nueva Vizcaya. Sometime in 1987, they met again and became sweethearts but the respondent’s family did not approve of their relationship.
After graduation from college in 1991, the respondent promised to marry the petitioner as soon as he finds a job. The job came in 1993, when Philippine Air Lines (PAL) hired the respondent as computer engineer. However, the respondent proposed to the petitioner that they first have a “secret marriage” in order not to antagonize his parents. Petitioner agreed; they were married in Manila on February 23, 1993.
Here's the thing though..
Due to the clandestine nature of a "secret marriage" petitioner and the respondent, however, never lived together. Aside from his fear of his parents disapproval, respondent refused to live with the petitioner for fear that public knowledge of their marriage would affect his application for a PAL scholarship. The petitioner stayed with her sister in Fairview, QC while the respondent lived with his parents in Novaliches. In spite of this arrangement the two saw each other every day during the first six months of their marriage, they would have sexual trysts in motels.
Seven months into their marriage, the couple’s daily meetings became occasional visits to the petitioner’s house in Fairview. And later that year, respondent lost his employment with PAL. And the parties respective families discovered their secret marriage. The respondent's mother tried to convince him to live in the states for time being but he refused. To appease his mother he continued living separately from the petitioner.
After graduation from college in 1991, the respondent promised to marry the petitioner as soon as he finds a job. The job came in 1993, when Philippine Air Lines (PAL) hired the respondent as computer engineer. However, the respondent proposed to the petitioner that they first have a “secret marriage” in order not to antagonize his parents. Petitioner agreed; they were married in Manila on February 23, 1993.
Here's the thing though..
Due to the clandestine nature of a "secret marriage" petitioner and the respondent, however, never lived together. Aside from his fear of his parents disapproval, respondent refused to live with the petitioner for fear that public knowledge of their marriage would affect his application for a PAL scholarship. The petitioner stayed with her sister in Fairview, QC while the respondent lived with his parents in Novaliches. In spite of this arrangement the two saw each other every day during the first six months of their marriage, they would have sexual trysts in motels.
Seven months into their marriage, the couple’s daily meetings became occasional visits to the petitioner’s house in Fairview. And later that year, respondent lost his employment with PAL. And the parties respective families discovered their secret marriage. The respondent's mother tried to convince him to live in the states for time being but he refused. To appease his mother he continued living separately from the petitioner.
(unfinished)
