Blog, FB, Multiply

Haven't post anything here since... i can't really remember. I am not really sure if this blogging thing bores me. I am also thinking of deactivating my FB account again. I have deactivated it before when it almost made me fail my subjects, because of the applications. Well, that's just an excuse, and i think i have to discipline myself and decided to deactivate it for a while to manage my studying time. Now, it's already active but i unfriend those people whom i am not really acquainted with. like schoolmates, friends of friends and office mates whom i never really talked to and wouldn't even want to have a conversation with. It's a way of minimizing the time i spend in looking at my FB. I only want to be updated about what's happening with my friend's lives. Those people that i really know and had been or is still part of m,y challenging life.

This post is really random, first thing i think of, write. just to update this blog. I always promise to write at least weekly here, but i can't seem to find time or i just forgot to. I think I'm starting to become lazy... again. haha.

How i wish i could be like those college students who always put something on their blog. Like a diary. Like a friend they talked to everyday. A best friend perhaps. Now I'm thinking, i don't actually had a best friend. Now, my boyfriend is my best friend. He will always be.

Updates

Nothing new, sleepy, vacation hangover, sleepy, stressed, super sleepy, lazy, reports and deadlines, updates and renewals, etc etc. well, it's new year! Happy belated new year to all!

sem break's over

game over na ulit. tapos na naman ang sem break. wala pa din ako sa mood. tamad na tamad. ayoko pa din magenrol. lalo na at makikita ko na ang grades ko. sana kasi may online viewing of grades na lang.

matapos ang 2 long weekend na break, parang walang nangyari. parang di ako nagenjoy. parang wala din akong pahinga. sana matapos na ko, para maiba iba na ang mundo ko. malapit na ko magsawa sa ganito...

Alisin ang kuliglig, ngayon na!

Noong Oct. 1, 2010, pinagbawal na sa maynila ang kuliglig. Ang "kuliglig" ay "pedicab" na pinapatakbo ng motor na hindi nman nakarehistro sa Land Transportation Office, dahil ang motor nito ay hindi para sa land transportation use. Nakakatawa at nakakainis na ang mga ito ay makikita  sa mga national road at iba pang main road sa kamaynilaan. Pero kahapon, narinig ko sa balita na i-extend ang palugit hanggang December. 

Bakit pa? kung kailan dadating ang pasko. Ibig sabihin, lalong lalala ang trapiko. Nakakainis lang na pinabayaan na dumami ang mga ganito. Nagagalit na ngayon ang mga nagpapatakbo nito dahil mawawalan daw sila ng hanap buhay. Mabuti sana kung sa mga looban o maliliit na kalye lang sila makikita. 

Karamihan sa mga ito, kung sumingit sa daan, walang pakundangan. Ikaw na may sasakyan ang syang iiwas para hindi magasgas ang sasakyan mo. Pag nakakatrapik sila, dahil sa pasingit singit sila sa daan, at nabusinahan, sila pa itong galit. 

Bakit? Sino bang mas may karapatang dumaan sa mga main road?  Hindi ba't bawal sa main road ang tricycle, e di mas lalong bawal ang kuliglig. Sila na itong hindi nakarehistro, nakakatraffic, mga siga at bastos sa daan, sila pa itong matatapang.

Kung hindi mo maunawaan kung bakit ako naiinis sa maliit na bagay na ito. Subukan mong magmaneho sa kamaynilaan. Mararanasan mo ang mga dahilan ng pagkainis ko.

2011 bar examinations

think again.

JOEL P. LIBUIT, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

G.R. No. 154363.  September 13, 2005

Facts: Joel Libuit was charged with the crime of estafa. Sometime in May 1993, Domingo del Mundo delivered and brought his car (Chevy 2dr. HT: Plate No. EDD-725) valued at P60,000.00, to the motor shop owned and/or operated by Joel Libuit and Julius Libuit for repair, it was received by Jose Bautista, mechanic, but accused Joel, once in possession of the said car, misappropriated, converted and/or misapplied the said car to his own personal use and benefit and despite repeated demands to return the said car to the owner, accused refused.

It appears from the prosecution evidence that sometime in May 1993, del Mundo, brought his car for repair at the Paeng Motorworks operated by the Joel.  The car was received by Jose Bautista, a mechanic, in the presence of the Joel who assured the del Mundo that it would be safe in his motor shop.

When del Mundo returned to the motor shop in January 1994, he saw his car by the roadside while the engine was inside the shop. Bautista explained that the engine was pulled out because it also needed repairs.  Joel and Bautista assured him that they would finish the repair work and deliver the car to del Mundo’s house after two weeks.  However, Joel failed to deliver the car. Del Mundo gave him another two weeks. Thereafter, del Mundo returned to the motor shop and found that his car was already missing. He reported the matter to the police, who discovered that Joel had sold the car’s differential and cylinder head, while the engine could no longer be found.

Joel testified on direct examination.  However, his defense counsel, Atty. Glenn P. Mendoza withdrew from the case after his initial cross-examination. The continuation of his cross-examination was reset to give him time to engage the services of another counsel. Joel eventually secured the services of Atty. Jose Dimayuga.

At the subsequent hearings, Atty. Dimayuga failed to appear despite notices.  On motion of the prosecution, court issued an order striking from the records Joel's direct testimony and declaring the case submitted for decision on the basis of the evidence already on record.

Court found herein petitioner guilty of the crime of estafa.

On appeal, CA affirmed in toto the decision of trial court.  CA held that the trial court never deprived Joel of his right to counsel as he was represented by a counsel de parte, Atty. Glenn P. Mendoza.  When said counsel withdrew, the trial court allowed the resetting of Joel's cross-examination to give him time to engage the services of another counsel. It ordered the striking of his testimony from the records only after his new counsel failed to appear at the subsequent hearings.

Issue: Was petitioner deprived of his right to counsel?

Held: Joel contends that the trial court should have appointed a counsel de oficio when his counsel consistently failed to appear for his cross-examination.

The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio for the accused who has no counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one is mandatory only at the time of arraignment.  No such duty exists where the accused has proceeded to arraignment and then trial with a counsel of his own choice.  When the time for the presentation of evidence for the defense arrived, and Joel appeared by himself alone, the absence of his counsel was inexcusable.

Since Joel was represented by counsel de parte at the arraignment and trial, the trial court could not be deemed duty-bound to appoint a counsel de oficio for the continuation of his cross-examination.  Indeed, after his initial cross-examination, the trial court granted the motion to postpone, giving him sufficient time to engage the services of another counsel. 

The failure of Atty. Dimayuga, his newly hired lawyer, to appear at the subsequent hearings without reason was sufficient legal basis for the trial court to order the striking from the records of his direct testimony, and thereafter render judgment upon the evidence already presented.  In fact, the repeated failure to appear of Joel's counsel may even be taken as a deliberate attempt to delay the court’s proceedings.

The appointment of a counsel de oficio in a situation like the present case would be discretionary with the trial court, which discretion will not be interfered with in the absence of grave abuse. This Court is convinced that the trial court had been liberal in granting postponements asked by the petitioner himself.  We think that such liberality removes any doubt that its order was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Petition is denied.

BEATRIZ L. GONZALES, Petitioner, vs. CFI OF MANILA, et al., Respondents

G.R. No. L-34395 May 19, 1981

Facts: Benito Legarda y De la Paz, the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason, died. He was survived by his widow, Filomena Races, and their seven children: (Beatriz, Rosario, Teresa and Filomena, Benito, Alejandro and Jose). The real properties left by Benito were partitioned in three equal portions by his daughters, Consuelo and Rita, and the heirs of his deceased son Benito Legarda y De la Paz who were represented by Benito F. Legarda.

Filomena died intestate and without issue. Her sole heiress was her mother, Filomena Races. Mrs. Legarda executed an affidavit adjudicating to herself the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena. As a result, Filomena Races succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena Legarda as co-owner of the properties held proindiviso by her other six children.

Mrs. Legarda executed two handwritten Identical documents wherein she disposed of the properties, which she inherited from her daughter, in favor of the children of her sons, Benito, Alejandro and Jose (sixteen grandchildren in all). Mrs. Legarda and her six surviving children partitioned the properties consisting of the one-third share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children inherited in representation of their father, Benito Legarda y De la Paz.

Mrs. Legarda died. Her will was admitted to probate as a holographic will. The decree of probate was affirmed by the CA.

In the testate proceeding, Beatriz Legarda Gonzales, a daughter of the testatrix, filed a motion to exclude from the inventory of her mother's estate the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter, Filomena, on the ground that said properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by Filomena Legarda's three sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito, Alejandro and Jose. That motion was opposed by the administrator, Benito F. Legarda.

Without awaiting the resolution on that motion, Beatriz filed an ordinary civil action against her brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces and her mother's estate for the purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are reservable properties. Lower court dismissed the action of Beatriz.

Issue: whether the properties in question are subject to reserva troncal under art.

Held: In reserve troncal (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a brother or sister; (2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of law from the said descendant, and (3) the said ascendant should reserve the said property for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree from the deceased descendant (prepositus) and who belong to the line from which the said property came.

3 transmissions are involved: (I) a first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased descendant; (2) a posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate succession or legitime) from the deceased descendant (causante de la reserve) in favor of another ascendant, the reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede the reservation, and (3) a third transmissions of the same property (in consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to the reservees (reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant belonging to the line of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the deceased descendant .

The persons involved in reserve troncal are (1) the ascendant or brother or sister from whom the property was received by the descendant by lucrative or gratuitous title, (2) the descendant or prepositus (prepositus) who received the property, (3) the reservor (reservista) the other ascendant who obtained the property from the (prepositus) by operation of law and (4) the reserves (reservatario) who is within the third degree from the prepositus and who belongs to the (line o tronco) from which the property came and for whom the property should be reserved by the reservor.

Reserva troncal contemplates legitimate relationship. illegitimate relationship and relationship by affinity are excluded. Gratuitous title or titulo lucrativo refers to a transmission wherein the recipient gives nothing in return such as donacion and succession.

The reserva creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and (2) the survival, at the time of his death, of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came.

The properties in question were indubitably reservable properties in the hands of Mrs. Legarda. She was a reservor. The reservation became a certainty when at the time of her death the reservees or relatives within the third degree of the prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they survived Mrs. Legarda.

Mrs. Legarda could not convey in her holographic will to her sixteen grandchildren the reservable properties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena because the reservable properties did not form part of her estate. The reservor cannot make a disposition mortis causa of the reservable properties as long as the reservees survived the reservor.

Article 891 clearly indicates that the reservable properties should be inherited by all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus who in this case are the six children of Mrs. Legarda. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein.

To allow the reservor in this case to make a testamentary disposition of the reservable properties in favor of the reservees in the third degree and, consequently, to ignore the reservees in the second degree would be a glaring violation of article 891. That testamentary disposition cannot be allowed.

Problema na naman!

Sinong wala? lahat naman meron nyan, minsan nga araw araw pa. Kanino ka lumalapit pag may problema ka? Dapat, wala kang lapitan, magdasal ka na lang. Problema mo yan, kaw lang ang makakapag-solve nyan.

Nakakatulong ba sila sa pagbibigay ng payo sa'yo? Di ba minsan nga lalo kang naguguluhan, nalilito, at lalo lang lumalaki ang problema? Mabuti ring makinig sa iba, pero bawat desisyon, dapat manggaling ito sayo at sayo lang. May isip ka di ba? dapat gamitin mo. Hindi mo dapat ipaubaya sa iba ang buhay mo. Sayo nakasalalay kung anong mangyayari sa hinaharap sa bawat desisyon na gagawin mo.

"Alam ko kung anong nararamdama mo." Alam nga ba nya o nila? Hindi! Hindi nila alam. Iba iba tayo. Walang pareho sa mundo. Kahit pareho pang issue yan, ang solusyon o desisyon ng isa ay hindi makapagbibigay ng parehong resulta kung sa ibang tao na. 

Sana yun ang naiisip ng iba bago makielam sa problema ng iba. Oo, yung iba, hindi na concern kundi nakikielam o nakikisawsaw na lang. 

the end is near

Hindi ito yung kanta. Nararamdaman ko na, malapit na kong lumisan sa kinauupuan kong ito. Lalo na ngayon na pine PESte ako dito, malapit na ang January, at mahirap na ang mga subjects ko. Sabi ko nga kay Mae, mararamdaman naman kung panahon na. Konti na lang, bibigay na ko. Sayang naeenjoy ko pa naman mga nakakasalamuha ko dito. hay...

In few years time, i'm out...

This 24th, I'll be turning 29! My last year at 20's! Single but committed, not yet really successful but going there, matured but not boring, and is really learning a lot every single day! 

I'm enjoying, really enjoying my life. Who shouldn't?  Whatever situation/trial there is, there's always the funny  and/or happy side, the learning side, the realization side, the getting closer to God side. I'm happy to learn, either the hard or easy way. 

On the day itself, I'll be making shrimp pasta, or maybe a seafood pasta. Whichever, I'll definitely prepare something just to celebrate!

basura at asukal

Habang papasok ako ng opisna, napansin ko, sa tapat ng SC, napakadaming basura. Nagisip tuloy ako. Umulan ba ng malakas kahapon? (Aug. 18, 2010). Hindi ko kasi alam dahil naka leave ako kahapon. Maya maya ay naalala ko, nag rally nga pala sa may SC dahil sa Hacienda Luisita issue. Ok, nandun na ko, may pinaglalaban kayo. Pero tama ba na iwanan ang napakadaming kalat na babara sa mga kanal at estero na magpapalala ng baha tuwing umuulan. Hay, sana naiisip nyo din ang ibang tao, hindi ang sarili nyo lang.

Asukal, bakit mataas na naman ang asukal? Di ba ganito rin ang nangyari nung panahon na pangulo si C. Aquino? hmmm....

Party @ LRC

Children's party, Aug. 16, 2010
Just wan to treat LRC family, Mae and Darwin!
Super fun! pictorial to the max!
Thank You!

2011 BarEx and Beyond by Prof. DZ Legaspi

I write to inform of you of the Supreme Court’s stated plans in respect of the conduct of the “2011 Bar Examinations and Beyond”. 

I. The matters set out below are important if you: a) Are a law student - 1st Sem SY 2010-2011 “and beyond”; and b) Intend to take the bar examinations next year or later.

Wish List

Dahil sa malapit na naman ang august, naalala ko bigla kung ano bang mga bagay ang gusto kong gawin o makuha. Ito ang mga ilan sa naalala ko.

1. travel - buong pilipinas at europa
2. restaurant
3. magpunta sa disney land - tokyo
4. Ford - everest
5. iMac
7. all volumes of SCRA
8. collection of CSI, NCIS, Cold Case Without a trace, Law and order, Bones, Numbers, Criminal Minds
9. Resort
10. Mag wall climb

i'll edit this next time

ANTONIO DOCENA and ALFREDA DOCENA, petitioners, vs. HON. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch III, Guian, Eastern Samar; RUFINO M. GARADO, Sheriff IV; and CASIANO HOMBRIA, respondents.

Facts: Casiano Hombria filed a Complaint .for the recovery of a parcel of land against his lessees, spouses Docena. The spouses claimed ownership of the land based on occupation since time immemorial. Trial court ruled in favor of the spouses. On appeal, CA reversed the judgment and ordered the spouses to vacate the land.

Hombria filed a Motion for Execution. The motion was granted.

Spouses filed a Motion to Set Aside or Defer the Implementation of Writ of Demolition. This motion was denied.

Ang vs CA

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

Facts: Irish Sagud and Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora. They became “on-and-off” sweethearts towards the end of 2004. Irish learned that Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant. Irish broke up with Rustan.

Before Rustan got married, he tried to convince Irish to elope with him. Irish rejected the proposal. Irish changed her cellphone number but Rustan managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages. Rustan used two cellphone numbers. Irish to ask him to leave her alone.

Irish received a multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure. The sender was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan used.

SEC vs GMA Network, Inc. 575 SCRA 113

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. GMA NETWORK, INC., respondent.

Facts: Petitioner GMA filed an application for various amendments to its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws with the respondent SEC. The amendments include, among others, the change in the corporate name of from "Republic Broadcasting System, Inc." to "GMA Network, Inc." as well as the extension of the corporate term for another 50 years.

Desiderata by Max Ehrmann

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Invitation for loan

Bilib din ako sa mga taong nagoofer ito. Every month yata may phone call ng ganitong offer para sa boss ko. Buti na lang madalas ko mahalata. Eh tawagin ba namang Miss ang boss ko eh lalaki yun. hahaha!

Crowning Glory

This, for most people, is the hair. I think it is evident at this generation where every street has a salon offering the best and cheapest hair - ,spa, re-bonding, cellophane, straightening, relax etc. Even the shampoo manufacturers have adjusted their products to the "needs" of the present generation.

Why am i talking about this? Simple.

Naranasan mo na ba na tamaan ng hinanging buhok ng katabi mo sa jeep dahil sa