JURISPRUDENCE ABOUT LOVE

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. ChuaQua 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 others 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 partys 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 ones situation and on ones 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.