You are on page 1of 7


TOMAS Case Digest

G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010

FACTS: Gerbert Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through
naturalization on Nov. 2000. On, Jan. 18 2005, he married a Filipina named Daisylyn Sto. Tomas.
Due to work and other professional commitments, Gerbert left for Canada soon after their wedding.
He returned to the Philippines sometime in April 2005 to surprise her wife but was shocked to
discover that Daisylyn was having an affair with another man. Hurt and disappointed, Gerbert went
back to Canada and filed a petition for divorce and was granted.

Two years after, Gerbert fell in love with another Filipina. In his desire to marry his new Filipina
fiance, Gerbert went to Pasig City Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree
on their marriage certificate. Despite its registration, an NSO official informed Gerbert that their
marriage still exists under Philippine Law; and to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must be
judicially recognized by a Philippine court.

Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as
dissolved, with the RTC. Daisylyn offered no opposition and requested for the same prayer.

RTC denied Gerberts petition contending that Art. 26 (2) applies only to Filipinos and not to aliens.
Gerbert appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

ISSUE: Whether the registration of the foreign divorce decree was properly made.

HELD: Supreme Court held in the negative. Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that no entry in a
civil register shall be changed or corrected, without judicial order. The Rules of Court supplements
Article 412 of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by which
entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
sets in detail the jurisdictional and procedural requirements that must be complied with before a
judgment, authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry.

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA GR No. 119190, J anuary 16, 1997


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. they went to Baguio but
Ginas relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse. 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 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 no 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.


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 to 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.

Felecitas Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 167109 February 6, 2007


Felicitas Amor-Catalan - Petitioner and Orlando Catalan - Respondent was married in
Pangasinan then they migrated to USA and became naturalized US citizens. After 38 years of
married, they got divorced. Two months later, Orlando married Merope Braganza. Felicitas
sought for declaration of nullity or marriage because it was bigamous on the basis that Merope
has prior existing marriage with a certain Eusebio Bristol however respondent Orlando filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action (should be failure to state a cause of
action by the Felicitas) alleging that shes not a real party-in-interest. RTC favored the petitioner
hence Orlando and Meropes marriage declared null and void however CA reversed decision and
dismissed the petition for annulment.


Whether or not a spouse can file a complaint for declaration of nullity of the second marriage on
the ground of bigamy despite an alleged divorce obtained abroad


However, this issue may not be resolved without first determining the corollary factual issues of
whether the petitioner and Orlando had indeed become naturalized American citizens and
whether they had actually been judicially granted a divorce decree.

Supreme Court determine first if divorce decree does not restrict marriage, CA correct in ruling
that Felicitas did not have personality because she had no existing interest, the marriage ties
being already cut; if divorce decree restricts marriage or limited divorce, RTC correct in ruling
that marriage was bigamous while the Supreme Court remanded case to RTC for reception of
additional evidence needed to check the divorce decree and the foreign law granting or
restricting remarriage.

Republic vs. Nolasco 220 SCRA 20

Gregorio Nolasco filed before the Regional Trial Court of Antique a petition for the declaration
of the presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker, invoking Article 41 of the Family
Code. During trial, Nolasco testified that he was seaman and that he had first met Parker, a
British subject, in a bar in England during one of his ships port calls. From that chance meeting
onwards, Parker lived with Nolasco on his ship for six months until they returned to Nolascos
hometown of San Jose, Antique in 1980 after his seamans contract expired. On January 1982,
Nolasco married Parker in Antique. After the marriage celebration, Nolasco obtained another
employment as a seaman and left his wife with his parents in Antique. Sometime in 1983, while
working overseas, Nolasco received a letter from his mother informing him that Parker had left
Antique He testified that his efforts to look for her whenever their ship docked in England were
fruitless, that the letters he sent to Parkers address in England were all returned to him, and that
their friends received no news from Parker. He testified that he had no knowledge of her family
background even after the marriage and did not report the disappearance to the authorities.
Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead
The respondent failed to establish that he had the well-founded belief required by law that his
absent wife was already dead that would sustain the issuance of a court order declaring Janet
Monica Parker presumptively dead. In the case at bar, the Court considers that the investigation
allegedly conducted by respondent in his attempt to ascertain Janet Monica Parker's whereabouts
is too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or well-founded belief that she was already dead.
When he arrived in San Jose, Antique after learning of Janet Monica's departure, instead of
seeking the help of local authorities or of the British Embassy, he secured another seaman's
contract and went to London, a vast city of many millions of inhabitants, to look for her there.
The Court also views respondent's claim that Janet Monica declined to give any information as to
her personal background even after she had married respondent too convenient an excuse to
justify his failure to locate her. The same can be said of the loss of the alleged letters respondent
had sent to his wife which respondent claims were all returned to him. Respondent said he had
lost these returned letters, under unspecified circumstances.

Manuel Almelor vs RTC of Las Pias City & Leonida Trinidad G.R. No. 179620 August 26, 2008
REYES, R.T., J.:

Manuel Almelor married Leonida Trinidad in 1989. They are both medical practitioners. They
begot 3 children. 11 years later, Leonida sought to annul their marriage claiming that Manuel is
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. Leonida testified that
Manuel is a harsh disciplinarian and has unreasonable way of imposing discipline with their
children but so good to his mom. Leonida also testified that Manuel concealed his homosexuality
prior to their marriage and she confirmed her doubts when saw Manuel kiss a man. The RTC
ruled that their marriage is null and void not because of Psychological Incapacity but rather due
to fraud by reason of Manuels concealment of his homosexuality (Art 45 of the FC). The CA
affirmed the RTCs decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between the two can be declared as null and void due to
fraud by reason of Manuels concealment of his homosexuality.

HELD: The SC emphasized that homosexuality itself is not a ground to nullify a marriage unless
it was concealed. In the case at bar however, it is not proven that Manuel is a homosexual. There
was nothing in the complaint or anywhere in the case was it alleged and proven that Manuel hide
such sexuality from Leonida and that Leonidas consent had been vitiated by such.

Jimenez vs Canizares
J imenez vs. Canizares
L-12790, August 31, 1960


Petitioner Joel Jimenez filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Remedios
Canizares on the ground that the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the
penetration of a male organ for copulation. It has existed at the time of the marriage and
continues to exist that led him to leave the conjugal home two nights and one day after the
marriage. The court summoned and gave a copy to the wife but the latter did not file any
answer. The wife was ordered to submit herself to physical examination and to file a medical
certificate within 10 days. She was given another 5 days to comply or else it will be deemed lack
of interest on her part and therefore rendering judgment in favor of the petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage can be annulled with only the testimony of the husband.


The case was remanded to trial court. The wife was not able to defend herself given that she is
shy and bashful to submit herself to a physical examination unless compelled by a competent
authority. She is not charged with any offense and likewise is not compelled to be a witness
against herself. Impotence should not be presumed.

Albano vs. Gapusan
AM No. 1022-MJ, May 7, 1976


Redentor Albano filed a complaint against Judge Gapusan for disciplinary action involving latters
malpractice in his notarization of a separation agreement between Valentina Andres and Guillermo
Maligta and the extrajudicial liquidation of their conjugal partnership. Likewise, a complaint alleging
said Judge influenced Judge Crispin of CFI-Ilocos in deciding two criminal cases. In the abovementioned
separation agreement, it was stipulated that the spouse guilty of adultery or concubinage shall be
barred to file an action against the other. Respondent judge denied all allegations.

ISSUE: WON Judge Gapusan should be reprimanded because of notarizing the void agreement between
the spouses.


SC held the action of respondent judge Gapusan as contrary to law. A notary should not facilitate the
disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and
extrajudically dissolving the conjugal partnership.

There is no question that the stipulation contained in the said separation agreement is contrary to law,
morals and good customs. The family is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and
protects. To preserve the institution of marriage, the law considers void any contract for personal
separation between husband and wife and every extra-judicial agreement for the dissolution of the