(This is written by Judge Don Navarro, reproduced here with his express permission.)
I recently had the opportunity to ask Justice Hilarion Aquino about remedies available to an offended party where the information had been dismissed outright for lack of probable cause (see Got Cause?).
A hot topic of discussion among judges that they could not resolve by themselves was whether or not the offended party could still prosecute the civil claim. Continue reading
Among the grounds for annulment of marriage, psychological incapacity is the more (if not the most) commonly used. It is also one of the more controversial provisions of the Family Code. The first set of guidelines were provided in the 1995 Santos case. In the subsequent case of Molina, the Supreme Court provided more definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36:
Just recently, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision (Antonio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, 10 March 2006) in connection with a petition for declaration of nullity under Article 36 (psychological incapacity) of the Family Code. The Supreme Court sustained the nullity of the marriage based on the psychological incapacity of the wife (respondent). As concluded by the psychiatrist presented by petitioner, such repeated lying is abnormal and pathological and amounts to psychological incapacity.
Continue readingThrough all the family cases that we have handled, we have come to accept, without discounting the contrary, the sad fact that bad blood exists between the opposing parties (e.g., estranged spouses in annulment/separation/property cases, siblings and relatives in estate proceedings). In particular, with respect to custody-support cases over children, it is easily understandable that custody is one of the more contested issues. However, the issue on child support should not be as complicated.
Continue readingThe recent effort to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative met the same fate as the previous ones. As early as 1997, in the case of Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997), the Supreme Court already decided, although with vigorous dissenting opinions, that the law intended to provide the mechanism for people’s initiative is not sufficient. Let’s take a look at that case.
Continue readingCorporate rehabilitation, which is similar to Chapter 11 reorganization in the United States of America, is distinct and separate from insolvency. Rehabilitation is intended to enable a distressed corporation to gain a new lease on life, so to speak, and to continue its business as a going concern. On the other hand, insolvency is intended to close and liquidate an insolvent corporation (please note that insolvency is also available to individuals or natural persons, while rehabilitation is available only to corporations, partnerships and associations). [Update: Refer to Court-Supervised Rehabilitation Proceedings under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA) of 2010; Supreme Court A.M. No. 12-12-11-SC (Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure) and A.M. No. 15-04-06-SC (Financial Liquidation and Suspension of Payments Rules of Procedure for Insolvent Debtors)
Continue readingFormer natural-born Filipinos who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (“Citizen Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003“) shall enjoy full rights enjoyed by any Filipino, subject to certain conditions enumerated below. Please note that the law covers only “natural-born” Filipinos (born of one or both parents who are Filipino citizens at the time of birth) who acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization.
Continue readingSome Filipinos want and do get married outside the Philippines. There’s nothing really strange with this, except when they say that the reason is for convenience in getting a divorce abroad. This is strange for two main reasons:
Continue reading[This entry was posted by Judge Don Navarro at his site (“Got Cause?”) and reproduced here with his express permission.]
One motion quickly gaining favour among lawyers after the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure came into effect is the “Motion for Determination of Probable Cause” to hold the accused for trial.
Continue readingThe petitions filed directly with the Supreme Court challenged the constitutionality of both Batas Pambansa 880 and the policy of Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) issued by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita. The Supreme Court decided in this manner:
Continue reading