A selection of Supreme Court ‘hugot’ lines pulled from various cases

By: Tetch Torres-Tupas - 1 year ago

From time to time, the Supreme Court inserts bits of poetry in a mundane discussion of the law, especially when stressing views on love and relationship.

Here are some of the “hugot lines” from Supreme Court decisions:

“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, Jan. 16, 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, Jan. 16, 1997)

“The heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.” —Chua-Qua vs. Clave, G.R. No. L-49549, Aug. 30, 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, Sept. 18, 1992

“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, July 31, 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, Nov. 23, 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, Aug. 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

“There can be no love where respect is gone.” —People vs. Rivera Nov. 17, 1999

“Love is not a license for lust.” —People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004

“She unconditionally laid herself prostrate to his charms, too much enamored of him to care about anything else. For, as philosopher Blaise Pascal has so pithily stated of the profundity of human love, ‘love has reasons that reason cannot explain.” —Abaigar vs. Paz – Sept. 10, 1979

Outside of actual cases, on Valentine’s Day, Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen had this to say, “love of country muna.” And he used the hashtag “#tipid.”