AMDG

Tablarin et. al. v. Gutierrez et. al.

G.R. No. 78164 | July 31, 1987

Facts:
The Medical Act of 1959, as amended, created the Board of Medical Education in order to
standardize and regulate medical education. Under the said law, one of the admission requirements for
medical schools is a certificate of eligibility for entrance from the Board of Medical Education. In line
with this, the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports issued MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, establishing
a uniform admission test called the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) as an additional
requirement for the issuance of a certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools of the
Philippines. Several students sought to enjoin the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board
of Medical Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from requiring the taking of the
NMAT, and the passing thereof, as a precondition for entering medical school. Accordingly, the assailed
law and regulation contravenes the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels as guaranteed by
Article XIV, Section l and Article XIV, Section 5 (3) of the Constitution. In accordance with Article II
Sections 13 and 17 of the Constitution, it is argued that it is a policy of the State to protect the
intellectual well being of the youth, and that the development of education, science and technology is
being hindered by the assailed law and regulation.

Issue: W/N Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 are constitutional.

Held: Yes.
In order to promote public order, the State has an inherent police power to protect the health,
physical safety and well being of the population. Both the law and the regulation articulates well its
purpose- the improvement of the professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools,
by upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student body of the medical schools. The students in
this case failed to clearly show how the assailed law and regulation runs contrary to the State Policy. The
State is not really enjoined to take appropriate steps to make quality education "accessible to al”l who
might for any number of reasons wish to enroll in a professional school but rather merely to make such
education accessible to all who qualify under "fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements”.

People v Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 128359 | December 6, 2000 | 347 SCRA 100

Facts:
Dela Cruz and San Antonio were resting in their bedroom when Macapagal, San Antonio’s
former live-in partner, knocked at the door. Upon opening, San Antonio was confronted by Macapagal
with a gun, who forcibly went inside the house and knocked at the room where Dela Cruz was staying.
Greeted by Macapagal’s gun upon opening the door, Dela Cruz immediately closed the door and looked
for his own gun. When Dela Cruz opened the door again, he and Macapagal grappled for each other’s
firearm, ultimately resulting to the shooting of Macapagal, causing instantaneous death. Dela Cruz
claimed self-defense in order to justify his act.

Issue: W/N Dela Cruz acted in self-defense.

Held: No.
When self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the
killing has been legally justified. Self-defense requires that there be (1) an unlawful aggression by the
person injured or killed by the offender, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel that unlawful aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
In this case, Dela Cruz was able to prevent harm when he closed the door upon seeing the gun
of Macapagal. Instead of stopping there however, Dela Cruz himself looked for his own gun and opened
the door again to grapple with Macapagal.
Furthermore, pieces of evidence show that the means employed to quell the unlawful
aggression were beyond that which is necessary to protect one’s self. Macapagal sustained 4 gunshot
wounds, one of which penetrated his heart and killed him instantly. Lastly, sufficient provocation was
present on the part of Dela Cruz when he opened the bedroom door the second time, armed with his
own gun.

Castillo v Republic
G.R. No. 214064 | February 6, 2017

Facts:
As their parents were good friends and business partners, Mirasol and Felipe started as friends
then, eventually, became sweethearts. During their courtship, Mirasol discovered that Felipe sustained
his affair with his former girlfriend. The couple's relationship turned tumultuous after the revelation.
With the intervention of their parents, they reconciled. They got married and were blessed with 2
children.
However, after thirteen years of marriage, Felipe resumed philandering. Tired of her husband’s
infidelity, she left the conjugal dwelling and stopped any communication with him.
Mirasol then filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Cavite
based on the psychological incapacity of the latter. Accordingly, Felipe’s irresponsible acts like
cohabiting with another woman, not communicating with her, and not supporting their children for a
period of not less than ten years without any reason warrants a finding that he is psychologically
incapacitated to sustain a healthy marriage.

Issue: Whether or not the totality of evidence presented warrants the declaration of nullity of the
marriage of Mirasol and Felipe on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of
the Family Code?

Held: No.
Psychological incapacity has been intended by law to be confined to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., it must be
grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in
a marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage, and (c) incurability,
i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
involved.
Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under
Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological incapacity, the
spouse’s unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely
preventing the respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the marital state
In this case, the findings on Felipe’s personality profile did not emanate from a personal
interview with the subject himself. Aside from the psychologist, Mirasol did not present other witnesses
to substantiate her allegations on Felipe's infidelity notwithstanding the fact that she claimed that their
relatives saw him with other women. Her testimony, therefore, is considered self-serving and had no
serious evidentiary value