Law School: Family Code of the Philippines List of Landmark Cases

[nodols3]

Good day everyone.

Kinsa nag law dinhi nga istoryan?

Anybody can help me in listing up all landmark cases in the Philippines in regards to the Family Code of the Philippines?

Or anybody knows a link to this list?

I think this list would be a very good guide and will be helpful to everyone taking up Law.

Thanks and more power to us..

[salbahis]

not sure if landmark but i find it funny, and im not lawyer, just fond with it, according to the lawyer nag handle ani everytime maka hinumdum siya maka tawa siya...

G.R. No. 119190

[emzness16]

not sure if landmark but i find it funny, and im not lawyer, just fond with it, according to the lawyer nag handle ani everytime maka hinumdum siya maka tawa siya...

G.R. No. 119190

Hahahaha this one you have to read TS... mao sad first nisud sa ako mind pag read nako imo post.

[nodols3]

Ahaka ninyo parehas man ta ug gihuna-huna, way lain diha? (hehe)
Most celebrated case ng ka Chi Ming Tsoi, hehe.

I forgot the female version ani, but there is one.

Any more cases?

[gunsky]

Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court of Appeals erred:

I

in affirming the conclusions of the lower court that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making any findings of fact.

II

in holding that the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent.

III

in holding that the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have *** with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both.

IV

in affirming the annulment of the marriage between the parties decreed by the lower court without fully satisfying itself that there was no collusion between them.

--------------

sorry, di kai nako magets pero ang demanda kay tungod wa sila ga*****?

[emzness16]

Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court of Appeals erred:

I

in affirming the conclusions of the lower court that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making any findings of fact.

II

in holding that the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent.

III

in holding that the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have *** with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both.

IV

in affirming the annulment of the marriage between the parties decreed by the lower court without fully satisfying itself that there was no collusion between them.

--------------

sorry, di kai nako magets pero ang demanda kay tungod wa sila ga*****?

hahahah the wife wants the marriage annuled kay ang guy can't get his thing to stand up or is "partially" erected. Hahaha matud pas among professor iyang titin mas humok pas mamon. Haahahahah

@TS: what law school do u go to? I have my persons syllabus here, i can send it to u if u want..

[mangoesandkisses]

that's definitely a landmark case regarding psychological incapacity.. there's also a case.. i forgot the title basta jennifer cagandahan.. landmark case about people who have 2 sexes and how they go about choosing only 1 ***. there's also another case about the flight attendant who gained weight sa pal then he was fired then he contested it.. and the court said it was a valid dismissal. another case i think star paper vs simbol? basta 2 ni sila ka cases ang isa ang star paper.. regarding the right of an employee to marry someone from another company and the company uses it as a cause for dismissal.. kana ra akong mahinumduman for now sa akong persons nga class before.

[nodols3]

Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court of Appeals erred:

I

in affirming the conclusions of the lower court that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making any findings of fact.

II

in holding that the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent.

III

in holding that the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have *** with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both.

IV

in affirming the annulment of the marriage between the parties decreed by the lower court without fully satisfying itself that there was no collusion between them.

--------------

sorry, di kai nako magets pero ang demanda kay tungod wa sila ga*****?

Nag file ug annulment ang wife kay dili makigs3x ang husband.
There is refusal on the part of the husband in consummating their marriage.

Anymore cases regarding Landmark cases sa Family Code of the Philippines?

[emzness16]

hahaha choi pud ng cagandahan case...)

[salbahis]

im subscribing this thread... hehehehehe...