CHI MING TSOI vs COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI

GR No. 119190, 266 SCRA 324 ,January 16,1997

Petitioner: Chi Ming Tsoi

Respondents: Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi

Ponente: Justo P. Torres, Jr.

Facts:

The petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi married the respondent Gina Lao- Tsoi on May
22, 1988. However from the date of their marriage until March 15, 1988, the said
couple failed to consummate their marriage.Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag, a urologist at the
Chinese General Hospital. The results of the wife’s examinations confirmed her
good health and virginity while that of her husband’s was kept confidential.
Eventually, Gina Lao-Tsoi filed for the annulment of their marriage on the
grounds of psychological incapacity in the RTC of Quezon City.The plaintiff
further claimed that the marriage was made to cover up the husband’s impotence
and homosexuality as well as to maintain the residency status of the latter in the
country.On the other hand, the defendant denounced all accusations and admitted
willingness to save their marriage.He asserted that the plaintiff filed the case
because the of the wife’s fear of returning her mother-in-law’s jewelries and
having sexual contact with the defendant. He then submitted himself for another
physical examination to Dr. Alteza who confirmed that the husband is still
capable of having sexual intercourse with a woman despite the latter’s diminutive
genitalia. The prosecutor declared that there is no collusion between the parties
and all evidences were not fabricated. After trial, the marriage was rendered null
and void by the RTC on November 29,1994 and the said decision was confirmed
by the Court of Appeals thereafter.A motion for reconsideration dated February
14,1995 was correspondingly denied.

Issue:

Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi’s continued refusal to have sexual communion
constitutes psychological incapacity

Ruling/Held:

Yes. One 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." Constant non- fulfillment of
this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the 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, thus paving way to
the eventual nullification of the marriage.

Similar Cases:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs
COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA
GR No. 108763, 268 SCRA 98, February 13,1977
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
Respondents: Court of Appeals (CA) and Roridel Olaviano Molina
Ponente: Justice Panganiban

Facts:

On August 16,1990 a case was filed by the respondent Roridel Olaviano

Molina to nullify her marriage to Reynaldo Molina which is held on April
14,1985 in San Agustin Church,Manila. Out of the marriage was a born son
named Andre O. Molina. After a year of marriage, the respondent claimed that
Reynaldo shown signs of immaturity and irresponsibility by spending more time
with his peers on whom he squandered his money, by relying on his parents for
aid and assistance and by being dishonest with regards to their finances thereby
resulting to frequent quarrels.In addition, the husband was relieved of his job
sometime in February 1986 , thus making Roridel the sole breadwinner of the
family.On October 1986, the couple’s relationship was estranged due to a very
intense quarrel and months later on March 1987, the wife went back to Baguio to
live with her parents. Weeks later, Reynaldo had since then abandoned his wife
and child.Due to the cited reasons above, Roridel claimed that Reynaldo is
psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital obligations and
that it would be of the couple’s best interest to have their marriage declared as
null and void. In his answer on August 28,1989, Reynaldo admitted that they are
already separated-in-fact but he argued that their frequent misunderstandings
were due to Rory’s strange behavior of maintaining her friends,refusal to perform
marital duties and failure to handle the finances. On May 14, 1991, the RTC
rendered judgment declaring the marriage void. Consequently, the CA affirmed
the the lower court’s decision of granting annulment of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Issue:

Whether or not irreconcilable differences or incompatibility between spouses

constitutes psychological incapacity as ground for the annulment of marriage

Ruling/Held:
 No. Irreconcilable differences or incompatibility between spouses does not
constitute psychological.The CA erred in its opinion .The Court reiterated the
ruling in Santos vs. CA and cited Mr. Justice Jose Vitug’s ruling that
“psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (nor physical)
incapacity..and that there is hardly any doubt the intendment of the law was to
confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to marriage.”Moreover, Dr. Gerardi Veloso, a
former presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic
Archdiocese of Manila states that “psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a)gravity,(b)juridical antecendence, and (c) incurability. The
case at bar does not show psychological incapacity but more of difficulty
/outright refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. The
couple’s breakup can be construed only as a result of their irreconcilable
differences and conflicting personalities,thereby failing to establish their
incapacity to assume marital duties. The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s
decision thereby rendering the marriage of Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina
valid and subsisting.
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased.
PEOPLE'S BANK and TRUST COMPANY, executor.
MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA
BELLIS, oppositors-appellants,
vs.
EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.
GR No. L-23678, June 6,1967
Petitioner:
Respondents:
Ponente: Justice J.P. Bengzon