Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA Facts:: GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997

SANTOS vs.
CA AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995
FACTS: Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in Iloilo. The two got married in 1986 before a
municipal trial court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The couple lived with Julias parents at the J.
Bedia Compound. Julia gave birth to a baby boy in 1987 and was named as Leouel Santos Jr. Occasionally, the couple
will quarrel over a number of things aside from the interference of Julias parents into their family affairs.
Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouels pleas to dissuade her. Seven months after her departure,
she called her husband and promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989 but she never
did. Leouel got a chance to visit US where he underwent a training program under AFP, he desperately tried to locate
or somehow get in touch with Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
Leouel filed a complaint to have their marriage declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code. He argued that
failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with him for more than 5 years are circumstances that show her
being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.
ISSUE: Whether their marriage can be considered void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
HELD:
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of
personal disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably,
neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem. Wherefore, his
petition was denied.
__________
Notes:
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The
incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required
in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations
may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond
the means of the party involved.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA

GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997
FACTS:
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding, they proceed to the house
of defendants mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them during their first night and same thing
happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but
Ginas relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long
walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept
together in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical
examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed.
There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the
country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled because he
loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and since their
relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another
physical examination and the result was there is not evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.
ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological incapacity.
HELD:
The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality
disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital obligations and the
refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to
stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children
thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.
CHI MING TSOI VS. C.A.

266 SCRA 324, January 16 1997
J., Torres, Jr.
Facts: On May 22, 1988, Gina Lao married Chi Ming Tsoi. Since their marriage until their separation on March 15,
1989, there was no sexual contact between them. Gina filed a case of annulment of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity with the RTC of Quezon City. The RTC granted annulment which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Is the failure to the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife from the time of the marriage until their
separation on March 15 1989 a ground for psychological incapacity.
Ruling: On of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children based on the universal
principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage.
In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity
Republic vs CA and Molina

Republic vs. CA and Molina
G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
FACTS:
The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo
Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo
manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with
friends whom he squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his
wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was
estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later,
Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
HELD:
The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What constitutes psychological incapacity is
not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must
exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological
illness. Reynaldos action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise
grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot
get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its
incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only
incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity.
The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in this case:
burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff
root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined
such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage
such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of marital
obligations of marriage
such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code
decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected
court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state.
Brenda Marcos vs Wilson Marcos (G.R. No. 136490)
Posted: August 18, 2011 in Case Digests
Tags: Marriage, Psychological Incapacity, Void Marriages
0
FACTS: Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging that the husband failed
to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case
for the nullity of the marriage on the ground that Wilson Marcos has psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the
marriage null and void under Article 36 which was however reversed by the Court of Appeals
ISSUES: 1. Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a physician is a requirement
for
a
declaration
of
psychological
incapacity.
2. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity.
HELD: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the totality
of evidencepresented. There is no requirement, however that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a
psychologist as a conditionsince qua non for such declaration.Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that
respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may haveresorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on hispart. There is
absolutely no showing that his defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they
areincurable.Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not
gainfully employed for aperiod of more than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk,
failed to give material and moral support,and even left the family home.Thus, his alleged psychological illness was
traced only to said period and not to the inception of the marriage. Equallyimportant, there is no evidence showing
that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver.In sum, this Court cannot
declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner to show that the alleged psychologicalincapacity is
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability; and for her failure to observe the guidelines outlined
inMolina.
Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, September 19, 2011

FACTS: Tyrone Kalaw and Malyn Fernandez got married in 1976. After the birth of their 4th child, Tyrone had an affair
with Jocelyn Quejano. In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four children with Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone
started living with Jocelyn, and they had three more children. In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with
Jocelyn and their children. On July 6, 1994, nine years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with the essential marital obligations at the time of the
celebration of their marriage. He alleged that 1) She leaves the children without proper care and attention as she
played mahjong all day and all night; 2) She leaves the house to party with male friends and returned in the early
hours of the following day; and 3) She committed adultery on June 9, 1985 in Hyatt Hotel with one Benjie whom he
saw half-naked in the hotel room. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon
law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyns psychological incapacity. Dr. Gates explained that
Malyn suffers from Narcissistic Personalityu Disorder and that it may have been evident even prior to her marriage
because it is rooted in her family background and upbringing. Fr. Healy concluded that Malyn was psychologically
incapacitated to perform her marital duties. He explained that her psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the
breadwinner of her family. This role allegedly inflated Malyns ego to the point that her needs became priority, while
her kids and husbands needs became secondary.
ISSUE: Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malynsuffers from psychological incapacity
HELD: No. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of
respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. No proof whatsoever was presented to prove her visits to beauty
salons or her frequent partying with friends. Malyns sexual infidelity was also not proven because she was only dating
other men. Even assuming that she had an extramarital affair with another man, sexual infidelity cannot be equated
with obsessive need for attention from other men. Sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal separation, but it does
not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.

Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA Facts:: GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA Facts:: GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA Facts:: GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANTOS vs.

CA AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS

Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA

CHI MING TSOI VS. C.A.

Republic vs CA and Molina

burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff

root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined

such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage

Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, September 19, 2011

You might also like