October 2023

Agnes, the petitioner, and Joe-Ar, the respondent, met at a restaurant in Bacolod City. Their relationship immediately developed.  slot gacor 4d situs toto slot gacor 4d agen toto amintoto login slot gacor 4d link bandar togel toto togel restoslot4d situs slot gacor togel online slot gacor 4d situs toto idn toto mahjong ways 2 situs toto gacor4d gacor4d agen toto slot situs gacor4d gacor4d slot gacor 4d angka jitu situs toto situs toto Shortly after they met, Agnes, who was just 18 at the time, was asked by her mother to go to her brother’s house and live there. Joe-Ar, who was 21 at the time, went with her. Her brother’s house was small, so Agnes and Joe-Ar had to share a bedroom. Because of this, Agnes’ family assumed that they had intimate relations and urged them to get married, which they did. After they got married, they had a child. At this point, they were living with Joe-Ar’s in laws, to which Agnes objected to as she does not like her in-laws. True enough, they did not treat her well. As their marriage developed, their relationship grew sour; Joe-Ar had a bad temper and would physically assault Agnes. Agnes moved to Cebu to escape from the abuse and to work. When she moved, she found out that Joe-Ar fooled around with different women and even had a child with one of them. Joe-Ar also failed to support their son. Hence, she filed a case for nullity of marriage under Article 36. RTC granted the petition, stating that Joe-Ar’s personality disorder, as established by the psychological report, was the cause of his incapacity to comply with marital obligations. OSG filed an MR then appealed to the CA, questioning the reliance of the RTC on the psychological report, and that it was biased since only Agnes and her sister were interviewed without any independent witnesses. CA reversed the RTC, stating that the psych, the report, and the testimony of the psychologist cannot be given credence as he was not able to interview Joe-Ar. On juridical antecedence Juridical antecedence is established by showing that the psychological incapacity exists at the time of the celebration, even if it only manifests during the marriage. There must be a TESTIMONY to describe the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior. The petitioner must show that the incapacity “IN ALL REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD” already existed at the time the marriage was celebrated. NOTE: Here, although not discussed, I think this was established by the testimony of Agnes who lived with Joe-Ar and his family as well as the psychologist. The SC said, the psychological report observed that Joe-Ar’s family background and environment nurtured and led to this type of personality. Who should the psychologist interview? The personal examination of the psychologically incapacitated spouse is not indispensable in establishing Art. 36 cases. It is enough that the totality of evidence establishes the psychological incapacity of one or both spouses. It is an accepted practice in psychiatry to base a person’s psychiatric history on collateral information, or information from sources aside from the person evaluated. Here, the persons who testified were Agnes, her sister, and the psychiatrist. These were deemed sufficient by the SC. SC said: it is only reasonable that a psychological report is based on the testimony of the petitioning spouse since she is the one who had closely observed and interacted with her partner. However, SC also clarified that evidence should also come from other sources. Here, Dr. Gerong’s psychological assessment is not only based on the petitioner, but also on another source: petitioner’s sister. Thus, psychological assessments based on testimonies of the petitioner and her sister may be given credence, unless there are reasons to believe that the testimonies are fabricated to favor the petitioner. As long as the totality of the evidence establishes the private respondent’s psychological incapacity, the dissolution of the marriage is warranted. The SC considered all of the evidence adduced as sufficient to show the psychological incapacity of Joe-Ar, hence the marriage was dissolved.

Marlon Agapito (Agapito) was employed by Aeroplus Multi-Services (Aeroplus) as a housekeeper. restoslot4d slot gacor amintoto restoslot4d restoslot4d amintoto restoslot4d amintoto link toto slot restoslot totokita3 restoslot4d restoslot4d amintoto idn slot restoslot4d amintoto slotgacor4d slot gacor 4d amintoto gacor4d slot gacor 4d restoslot4d amintoto amintoto amintoto During a meeting, Agapito asked his immediate supervisor George Constantino (Constantino) about the unfair treatment he was getting in relation to his tardiness. Constantino, already irate, uttered, “Masyado kang ma-reklamo, kung ayaw niyo ang patakaran ko lumayas ka dito!” When Agapito reported this incident to Aeroplus’ personnel office, Constantino found out about it and gave him a letter memorandum for insubordination. Agapito was later suspended for 2 weeks. When Agapito reported back to work, Darrel Mendoza (Mendoza), Aeroplus’ OIC-Personnel, told him, “Wala na tiwala sayo ang Management kaya tanggal ka na!” When Agapito asked for an explanation, Mendoza shot back with, “Basta tanggal ka na!” Consequently, Agapito Filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and money claims. He argues that: LA: Aeroplus liable for illegal dismissal The statements of Aeroplus’ OIC-Personnel Mendoza — “Wala na tiwala sayo ang Management kaya tanggal ka na!” and “Basta tanggal ka na!” followed by his directive for petitioner to get out of the office leave no doubt that petitioner was indeed dismissed outright without due process. NLRC: Reversed; uttered words do not constituted terminationCA: Affirmed NLRC Did the words Constantino and Mendoza utter amounted to illegal dismissal? YES. In illegal dismissal cases, before the employer must bear the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. Here, Agapito categorically recounted that Aeroplus OIC-Personnel Mendoza said “Wala na tiwala sayo ang Management kaya tanggal ka na!” and “Basta tanggal ka na!,” immediately followed by an unequivocal order for petitioners to get out of the office, speak for themselves. It was an outright termination of employment without just cause and due process. Accordingly, Aeroplus Multi-Services, Inc. is found liable for the illegal dismissal of Agapito and was ordered to pay backwages, separation pay, SIL, and damages.

Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Jovito and Kathleen Bercede, G.R. No. 214223, reminds us that case law instructs that the unavailability or loss of the source documents listed higher in the list than the one being offered as the source for a petition for reconstitution must be proved by dear and convincing evidence. Sps. Bercede (Jovito and Kathleen) claims that they are the owners of a parcel of land covered by OCT No. 4275. The property was allegedly purchased from Kathleen’s parents, evidenced by a deed of absolute sale. Kathleen’s parents, in turn, bought from Kathleen’s grandmother through an absolute deed of sale. Kathleen’s grandmother acquired the same from the heirs of the original owner, by way of an extrajudicial settlement. Thus, the subject property was still under the name of its original owner. Sps. Bercede, before the RTC, prayed for the reconstitution of OCT No. 4275. They averred that the original copy of the title (which should have been on file with the Register of Deeds) and the owner’s duplicate have both been lost and destroyed. The following documents were presented in support of the petition: a photocopy of the OCT, Tax Declaration, Tax Clearance, EJS and all the deeds of absolute sale, a Certification from the LRA-RD stating that the certificate of title covering the subject property was no longer available (either that it was burned or lost during the World War), and a Certification from the DENR which indicated the geographic position and plane coordinates of the cadastral survey covering the subject property. The Republic sought to dismiss the petition, arguing: The petition was granted by the RTC. LRA Certification confirmed the loss or destruction of the certificate of title. The spouses have shown that they have an interest over the property through the subsequent transfers, which culminated in their ownership. The Tax Dec, in relation to the photocopy of the OCT, means that the title is still in force and that the area and boundaries of the property are the same as those contained in OCT No. 4275. The republic appealed, interposing, among others the supposed intercalations and erasures on the photocopy of the OCT even if the RA 26 requires that the certificate of title should be free from apparent erasures and alterations. However, their appeal was denied by the CA. The Republic maintains that the spouses failed to prove that the owner’s duplicate of OCT was also missing, because the certificate by the LRA refers solely to the original supposed to be on its file, and resorting to a mere photocopy is unjustified. THE PETITION WAS GRANTED. The SC reversed the CA and the RTC, denying the petition for reconstitution. The purpose of reconstitution is to enable, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the reproduction of the lost or destroyed Torrens certificate in the same form and in exactly the same way it was at the time of the loss or destruction. In Denila v. Republic, the SC held that substantial compliance with jurisdictional requirements is not enough, because the acquisition of jurisdiction over a reconstitution case hinged on a strict compliance with the requirements of the law. Both the RTC and the CA did not make any categorical ruling on whether the spouses have established that they failed to secure or find the documents mentioned paragraphs (a) to (e) of Section 2 to justify their resort to a photocopy of OCT No. 4275. In fact, when Kathleen testified, it was shown that their only basis for seeking reconstitution of their title is that it was lost and destroyed based on the June 3, 2008 Certification issued by the LRA that the said OCT is not on their file. Based on this fact alone, the petition for reconstitution should have been dismissed by the RTC and should not have prospered. On this score, case law instructs that the unavailability or loss of the source documents listed higher in the list than the one being offered as the source for a petition for reconstitution must be proved by credible and convincing evidence. Therefore, the party praying for the reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such documents and failed to find them before presentation of ‘other documents’ as evidence in substitution is allowed.