🥑Princeious

"Be mindful of what you toss away, be careful of who you push away and think hard before you walk away" “Proven and Tested”

[Manu @m__anu_]

TALO NANAMAN TAYO!!!!!!!!

[🥑Princeious @Emerysss_]

sabi ko na nga scam na yun eh putaaaa

[🥑Princeious @Emerysss_]

how me watering your plant 🫣👀

[Matthew Gaston @MCKGaston]

Don’t forget to water your plants! They will perk right up!

[Gabriele Corno @Gabriele_Corno]

The elderly lady on the bus is showing off a truly unusual handbag.

[🥑Princeious @Emerysss_]

@kayebarbaby preparation is the key
consistent with aral
having break time
enjoying the journey

[GMA News @gmanews]

Happy Cat Day, mga Ka-pusa! 🐱🫶

#InternationalCatDay

[k @Kaartikkkkk]

Avoid sex outside of marriage

[🥑Princeious @Emerysss_]

pansin ko lang no, sa first day pag may rally, at na close yung daan dito sa mendiola, inuulan

[ᅠ ᅠ @greenvibe]

A cute white cloud is watering the green plant.

[紐約狗狗 @kesanitw]

🥤🛋️🎞️

[naiive @naiivememe]

dad joke no.46

[Philippine Supreme Court Public Information Office @SCPh_PIO]

The #SupremeCourtPH (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://t.co/0mk2Ou2laL.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://t.co/Zk5zZWi2ZN.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://t.co/OuZxIbCoc4.

[koreanoli @koreanoli]

They are literally the same picture 😭