Jurisprudence

A trademark registration in bad faith is considered unfair competition under the Intellectual Property Code:

Adultery, being a private offense, cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

For a recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Both must exist since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

A lawyer’s “locked” profile or privacy settings do not shield them from liability. Citing Belo-Henares v. Guevarra, the Supreme Court held that there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” for Facebook posts because privacy tools are not foolproof, as information shared with “friends” can easily be shared or leaked to others outside the intended circle.

NO. The respondents’ tax declarations are insufficient proof of ownership. A tax declaration does not prove ownership, but rather serves as an indicium of possession in the concept of ownership.

No, marital infidelity alone does not constitute a violation of RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act.

This case examines whether heirs may still invoke the family home exemption after the property was waived in favor of one heir, mortgaged to a bank, and was later subject to foreclosure due to loan default. The Supreme Court clarified the limits of the family home exemption, emphasized the importance of timely invocation before the sheriff, and outlined the protection afforded to a mortgagee acting in good faith.

Marital infidelity was specifically mentioned in Section 3(a)(C) Republic Act No. 9262 as constitutive of psychological violence, which evidently falls under the phrase any form of harassment or violence under Section 5(i) of the same law.

The Court revisited the purpose of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act and examined whether age at the time of judgment should outweigh age at the time the offense was committed..

As a general rule, a marriage solemnized by an unauthorized officiant is void. However, the Court held that under Article 35(2) of the Family Code, the marriage remains valid if one or both of the participating parties believe in good faith, and it is with this belief that grants the solemnising officer the authority. Hence, the marriage continues to have full legal effect, and even with the lack of legal capacity by the officiating person, the marriage should not be declared void.