Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Case for Psychological Incapacity

Case for Psychological Incapacity

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,135|Likes:
Published by Kristine N.

More info:

Published by: Kristine N. on Aug 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





CHI MING TSOI, petitioner VS. C.A. & GINA LAO-TSOI, respondentsJanuary 17, 1997FACTS:Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao were married on May 22, 1988. Until their separation on March 15,1989, there was no sexual contact between them. Hence, Gina (wife) filed a petition for thedeclaration of nullity of their marriage. Medical examinations showed that the wife was healthy,normal and still a virgin, while the husband was found to be capable of having sexual intercoursesince he was not impotent.The wife claimed that her husband was impotent, and was a closet homosexual as he did notshow his penis and since he was using his mother’s eyebrow pencil and cleansing cream. Shealso claimed that her husband married her, a Filipino citizen, in order to acquire or maintain hisresidency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man. Onthe other hand, the husband claimed that it was his wife who was psychologically incapacitatedto perform basic marital obligations. He asserts that his wife avoided him whenever he wants tohave sexual intercourse with her. He further claimed that his wife filed the case because she wasafraid that she would be forced to return the pieces of jewelry of his mother, and that he mightconsummate their marriage. He also insisted that their marriage would remain valid because theyare still very young and there is still a chance to overcome their differences.The trial court declared their marriage void on account of psychological incapacity of thehusband. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.ISSUE:Whether or not the prolonged refusal of the husband to have sexual cooperation for the procreation of children with his wife is equivalent to psychological incapacity.RULING:Yes. The prolonged refusal of the husband to have sexual cooperation for the procreation of children with his wife is equivalent to psychological incapacity.If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essentialmarriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, the Catholic marriage tribunalsattribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. The husband’s senselessand protracted refusal to fulfill his marital obligations is equivalent to psychological incapacity.One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to “procreate children based onthe 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. Decision affirmed and petition denied for lack of merit.
SANTOS v. CA-240 SCRA 20- January 4, 1995FACTS:
Leouel first met Julia in Iloilo City. The meeting later proved to be an eventful dayfor both of them for they got married on September 20, 1986. Leouel and Julia livedwith the latter’s parents. The ecstasy, however, did not last long. It was bound tohappen, Leouel averred, because of the frequent interference by Julia’s parents intothe young spouses’ family affairs. Occasionally, the couple would also start a“quarrel” over a number of things like when and where the couple should startliving independently from Julia’s parents or whenever Julia would expressresentment on Leouel’s spending a few days with his own parents.On May 18, 1988, Julia finally left for the U.S. to work as a nurse despite hishusband’s pleas to so dissuade her. Seven month’s after her departure, Julia calledLeouel for the first time. She promised to return home upon the expiration of hercontract but she never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the U.S., where heunderwent a training program under the auspices of the Armed Forces of thePhilippines he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch with Julia, butall his efforts were of no avail.Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least tocommunicate with him, for more than five years are circumstances that clearlyshow her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.ISSUE:Whether or not Julia is psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the FamilyCode of the Philippines.RULING:Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridicalantecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such thatthe party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required inmarriage; 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 mustbe incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. The use of the phrase “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of the Code hasnot been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewisementioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence,immaturity and like circumstances. Article 36 of the Family Code cannot beconstrued independently of but must stand in conjunction with existing precepts inour law on marriage. Thus, correlated, psychological incapacity should refer to noless than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be trulyincognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed anddischarged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love,
respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that theintendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacityto the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utterinsensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Thispsychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The lawdoes not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse to havesexual relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of theFamily Code, which considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be “legitimate.” The well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and persons withexpertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDELOLAVIANO MOLINA, respondentsFebruary 13, 1997FACTS:On April 14, 1985, plaintiff Roridel O. Molina married Reynaldo Molina which union bore ason. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as ahusband and a father as he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends, depended onhis parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances,resulting in frequent quarrels between them. The RTC granted Roridel petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage which was affirmed by the CA.ISSUE:Do irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities constitute psychological incapacity?RULING:There is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. Itappears to us to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performanceof some marital obligationsMere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wiseconstitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to beincapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness.The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not getalong with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability.The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code arehereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt

Activity (33)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
John John Tejoso liked this
Erika Acag liked this
Erika Acag liked this
rambahfaith liked this
Cherry Medrano liked this
Brenna Colina liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->