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
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. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores. – Chua-Qua vs. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, August 30, 1990
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. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations. – Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, G.R. No. 119190, January 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 v. CA, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997
“In rape, the ‘sweetheart’ defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as the first, because this Court has held often enough that love is not a license for lust.” – People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 469, 471.
Love is not a license for carnal intercourse through force or intimidation. . . A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. A man cannot demand sexual submission and, worse, employ
violence upon her on a mere justification of love. – People vs Gecomo, G.R. Nos. 115035-36, February 23, 1996
Profession of love is not enough; acceptance of the proffer must be proved to show a sweetheart relationship. Allegations are not proof. There must be corroborative evidence. – Manuel Huang Chua v. People, supra, Note 2.
The medical examination of a victim is not a requisite for the successful prosecution of rape. Even without a medical report, a court may convict an accused based on the offended party’s credible testimony. The “sweetheart” defense cannot be given credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens. Love is not a license to rape. – People v. Lampaza, G.R. No. 138876, November 24, 1999
When love is lost between spouses and the marriage inevitably results in separation, the bitterest tussle is often over the custody of their children. The Court is now tasked to settle the opposing claims of the parents for custody pendente lite of their child who is less than seven years of age. There being no sufficient proof of any compelling reason to separate the minor from his mother, custody should remain with her. – Gualberto v. Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994, June 28, 2005
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 v. Egan, G.R. No. 139338, May 28, 2002
In hindsight, one may say that the instant case is all about love extending beyond the realm of law and morality. The titillation which this abstraction brings forth, however, should not gloss over the fact that a young innocent girl was ruthlessly torn from the side of her family, overpowered by superior strength, her cries for help stifled, and rushed to an unknown house and there defiled. Certainly, there is something more to be endured by her than mere physical pain although that may not be inconsiderable. In justifying the penalty imposed upon such misguided act, even if it was done purportedly to soothe the indignity of an unrequited love, we said in United States v. Borromeo: “[W]hen such an occurrence ceases to be a reality to her and becomes a memory, if it ever does, she may derive no comfort, no pride, no satisfaction by recalling it. Shame, misery, mortification, are her lot. Nor can she, if she would, banish the dreadful occurrence from her thoughts. The story has spread like wildfire. Pitying looks, pointing fingers, and morbid stares remind her everywhere she goes of her terrible experience x x x x In the case of the girl, the effects are permanent and far-reaching. Time may lessen but can never annul her sufferings. Nor is she the only sufferer. Her whole family, to a lesser degree, shares in her humiliation.” – People v. Egan, G.R. No. 139338, May 28, 2002
In People v. Cias, this Court held that “love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will.”
Shorn of any reference to psychology, we conclude that we have a case here of parties who have very human faults and frailties; who have been together for some time; and who are now tired of each other. If in fact the respondent does not want to provide the support expected of a wife, the cause is not necessarily a grave and incurable psychological malady whose effects go as far as to affect her capacity to provide marital support promised and expected when the marital knot was tied. To be tired and to give up on one’s situation and on one’s husband are not necessarily signs of psychological illness; neither can falling out of love be so labeled. When these happen, the remedy for some is to cut the marital knot to allow the parties to go their separate ways. This simple remedy, however, is not available to us under our laws. Ours is still a limited remedy that addresses only a very specific situation – a relationship where no marriage could have validly been concluded because the parties, or one of them, by reason of a grave and incurable psychological illness existing when the marriage was celebrated, did not appreciate the obligations of marital life and, thus, could not have validly entered into a marriage – Reyes So v. Valera, G.R. No. 150677, June 5, 2009
In People v. Napudo, The fact alone that two people were seen seated beside each other, conversing during a jeepney ride, without more, cannot give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. Intimacies such as loving caresses, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet murmurs or any other affectionate gestures that one bestows upon his or her lover would have been seen and are expected to indicate the presence of the relationship.
Do you know any quotes or jurisprudence about love which has not been included in here? Please post them as a comment below and I will update this article soon!