This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
• • They had their honeymoon in Baguio, but the petitioner invited their parents to come with them They have never engaged in a sexual intercourse and have never seen their private parts
They submitted themselves for a medical examination to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag (a urologist) • • • Gina Lao‐Tsoi was found out to be healthy, normal and still a virgin The results of Chi Ming Tsoi was undisclosed and kept confidential The husband was given prescriptions (also confidential) and was asked to return but never did
Gina Lao‐Tsoi petitioned for annulment of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. She claims that: • • • her husband is impotent and that he is a “closet homosexual” for he has never shown his penis she had observed his husband using his mother’s eyebrow pencil (oha landi ni kuya) and cleansing cream. he only married her to acquire and maintain his residency status here in the Philippines and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man
On the other hand, Chi Ming Tsoi does not want their marriage to be annulled for the reasons: • • • he loves her very much he is physically or psychologically capable they can still reconcile their differences for their marriage is still very young
The husband admitted that there was never a sexual contact between them, but according to him, whenever he tries to have sex with her, she always stopped him There are two reasons, according to him, why her wife filed this case against him 1. she is afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces of jewelries of his mother 2. that he will consummate their marriage He then had a physical examination with Dr. Alteza. Results: • • • • he is not impotent he is capable of erection from original size of 2 inches, his penis lengthened by 1 inch and 1 centimeter upon erection capable of having sexual intercourse
The lower court declared their marriage as Void and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
Hence, this appeal. Issue: W/N Chi Ming Tsoi is psychologically incapacitated because of his refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife. Held: The SC held that his refusal to engage in a sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes a psychological incapacity on his part. (Kailangan ko i‐quote ang SC nakakatuwa yung ruling eh) Evidently, 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. Senseless and protracted refusal to have sex with your wife is equivalent to psychological incapacity. 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.” When a spouse constantly refuses to have sex and to procreate, it will utterly destroy the marriage. Sabi nga ni Justice Torres, “Love is useless unless it is shared with another.” The SC affirms the decision of the CA and denies Chi Ming Tsoi’s appeal.
Republic vs. Nolasco Facts: Gregorio Nolasco is a seaman and he met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in Liverpool, England. She lived with him on his ship for 6 months until they returned to his house in Antique. They got married on Jan15, 1982. (Without knowing the personal background of Janet) Nolasco had another contract and boarded the ship after their marriage. In Jan. 1983, he received a letter from his mother saying that Janet gave birth to their son and left Antique. He asked permission to leave, but he arrived in Antique in Nov.1983 On Aug.5 1988, Nolasco petitioned for the declaration of presumptive death of Janet, invoking Art.41 Upon trial, he said that to find Janet: • • • he got another contract to board the ship and went to London. He asked their common acquaintances about Janet and where he could find her, but no one could tell He wrote letters addressed to the bar where they met but the letters were all returned to him
He claims that he has done everything to find Janet. The lower court granted the petition and the CA affirmed it. The Solicitor ‐General appeals on the grounds that Nolasco has not presented one of the requisites for the declaration of presumptive death which is a “well‐founded belief” that Janet is dead. Issue: W/N the respondent has a well‐founded belief that his wife is dead. Held: NONE. The SC said that Nolasco failed to searh for his missing wife as to give rise to a well‐founded belief. The SC did not believe that he has no information regarding the personal background of Janet even after they got married. The SC also did not believe that he has lost all the letters that were returned to him. The SC also pointed out they cannot accept his mistake of thinking London is the same as Liverpool. (Because he said that he went to London to look for her) Lastly, he failed to explain why he did not ask help from the British Embassy or to the police or other authorities in London and Liverpool to find his wife. The SC nullified the decision of the CA in declaring the presumptive death of Janet.
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA I. BILDNER and SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, respondents. [G.R. No. 139808. May 12, 2000] POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER, and SYLVIA ILUSORIO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, respondents.
Facts: Potenciano Ilusorio (a lawyer) married Erlinda Kalaw‐Ilusorio on July 11, 1942. They separated in 1972. Potenciano lived in Makati when he is in Manila and in his penthouse in Baguio Country Club when his in Baguio, while Erlinda lived in Antipolo. In 1997, Potenciano stayed with Erlinda in Antipolo when he returned from the US. Sylvia Ilusorio and Erlinda I. Bildner alleged that their mother, Erlinda K. Ilusorio, overdosed Poteciano with the anti‐depressant drug that was prescribed to him. This resulted to the deterioration of Potenciano’s health. In Feb 1998, Erlinda petitioned for guardianship over her husband, Potenciano, and his properties because of his old age and weak health and impaired judgment. In May 1998, Potenciano had a corporate meeting in Baguio and upon his return, he stayed in Makati and did not come back to Erlinda. In 1999, Erlinda filed a writ for habeas corpus to have custody over Potenciano. She claims that her children did not want her to visit Potenciano and prohibited him from returning to her. The CA gave Erlinda visitation rights but denied the petition for habeas corpus. Erlinda appeals to the SC for the grant of habeas corpus. Potenciano and his children appeal for the annulment of the decision where Erlinda was given visitation rights. ISSUE: W/N Erlinda can secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel Potenciano to live with her. HELD: No. The SC dismisses the petition for habeas corpus because upon trial, they found out that Potenciano is of sound and alert mind. To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective, not merely nominal or moral. He is possessed with the capacity to make choices regarding his residence and people he wants to see or live with. Also, Potenciano may not be the subject of visitation rights because he is still in right mind and with full mental capacity. The SC grants the petition for nullification of the CA’s decision in giving Erlinda the right to visit Potenciano.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.