Jarlos v. Talens CA1/5

Filed 6/27/14 Jarlos v. Talens CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

KATHERINE LOUISE ENRIQUEZ JARLOS, A140418 Respondent, (San Mateo County v. Super. Ct. No. FAM0122258)

CARLO PANGILINAN TALENS,

Appellant. _______________________________________/

The trial court issued a one-year restraining order protecting Katherine Louise Enriquez Jarlos from Carlo Pangilinan Talens pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.). Talens appeals, claiming insufficient evidence supports the order.1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND “We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment.” (Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405.) 1 All further statutory references are to the Family Code. Jarlos did not file a respondent’s brief. “[W]e do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as a ‘default’ but examine the record, [and Talens’s] brief . . . to see if it supports any claims of error made by [Talens].” (In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) As the appellant, Talens “has the burden of demonstrating error” even if Jarlos does not file a brief. (Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224, 227.) 1

In late July 2013, Jarlos applied for a domestic violence restraining order (DV- 100) seeking protection from Talens. In her application and supporting declaration, Jarlos stated she began dating Talens in 2011 and lived with him from December 2012 to April 2013, when she ended the relationship.2 Jarlos averred Talens: (1) sent her emails blaming her for their break up; (2) hacked into her email account; (3) “emotionally manipula[ted]” her; (4) showed her his gun; (5) threatened to kill her and her family; and (6) in July 2013, “called, left voicemails, or messages almost every day even though [she] told him [she did not] want contact.” Talens showed “aggression, possessiveness, hostility, and violence” throughout their relationship. Jarlos characterized her relationship with Talens as “a cycle of romance and physical abuse” and stated Talens put her in a “headlock and dragged [her] into [her] room,” and “jumped [her] on several different occasions.” During some verbal altercations, Talens yelled, broke things, and threatened to kill Jarlos or himself. Jarlos stated she was “afraid to go outside on [her] own” because Talens “might be following” her. The court issued a temporary restraining order (DV-110). In a lengthy response (DV-120), Talens denied the allegations in Jarlos’s application and attached correspondence between the parties in Tagalog. At a hearing, Jarlos testified the information in her application and supporting declaration was true and correct. She described an altercation with Talens where he cursed at her, “didn’t stop yelling[,]” and then pinned her “on the floor and . . . was on [her] forehead.” Talens testified. He conceded he had “verbal arguments” with Jarlos where they “yell[ed] at each other” but claimed he did “not harm her in any way.” Talens said he had a “perfect” relationship with Jarlos until her family “brainwashed” her and tried to convince her to break up with him.