CHI MING TSOI V CA

G.R. No. 119190

January 16, 1997
FACTS: On May 12, 1988, petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi got married with private
respondent, Gina Lao-Tsoi. Up until March 15, 1989, when they separated, no sexual
intercourse happened between them. Gina, distraught by her uncaring husband,
filed a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Their marriage was considered void on November 29, 1994 by the RTC of QC which
was affirmed in toto by the CA on February 14, 1995.
ISSUE: WON the CA decision is correct
HELD: The marriage between Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi is considered void as
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.
MOLINA V CA
G.R. No. 108763
February 13 1997
FACTS: This case challenges the decision made by the CA on January 25, 1993
declaring the nullity of marriage of Reynaldo Molina and Roridel O. Molina on April
14, 1985 on the ground of psychological incapacity. Sometime in 1986, a year after
their marriage, Reynaldo began showing signs of immaturity and irresponsibility
by spending most of his time and money on his friends instead of his wife and son.
In February 1986, he lost his job which made Roridel the sole breadwinner of their
family. In 1987, Roridel quit her job and and went to Baguio City together with their
son to live with her parents. A few weeks later, Reynaldo left his wife and son. They
have been separated since. Roridel filed a petition for nullity of marriage on August
16, 1990.
ISSUE: WON the CA decision is correct
HELD: Evidences adduced by the private respondent did not point out
psychological incapacity, as psychological incapacity is defined in Leouel Santos vs.
Court of Appeals as: "psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental
(nor physical) incapacity . . . and that (t)here is hardly any doubt that the
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of 'psychological incapacity'
to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This
psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated." Citing Dr.

Gerardo Veloso, a former presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of

the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, Justice Vitug wrote that "the psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability."; but rather, merely an incompatibility of personalities between the
parties. Additionally, expert testimony given by Dr. Sison showed no incurable
psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as
psychological incapacity. Since the alleged personality trait of Reynaldo did not
constitute psychological incapacity, the decision made by the CA is reversed and set
aside. The marriage between Reynaldo Molina and Roridel O. Molina remains valid.
VAN DORN V ROMILLO JR.
G.R. No. L-68470
October 8, 1985
FACTS: The case at bar seeks to set aside orders from respondent judge which
denied the petitioners motion to dismiss case and motion for reconsideration dated
June 8, 1983 and August 3, 1984, respectively on the ground that the divorce
decree has no bearing in the case given that the property, The Galleon Shop, is
located in the Philippines. It involves the management of the aforementioned
property which was a conjugal property of Alice Reyes Van Dorn, the petitioner and
Richard Upton, the private respondent who were divorced in 1982 in Nevada, USA.
Upton filed a suit in RTC of Pasay City ordering the petitioner to render an
accounting of the business and that he be declared to have the right to manage the
business.
ISSUE: WON the divorce decree is valid and binding in the Philippines
HELD: Pursuant to the petitioners national law, that is, as stated by the Federal
Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:
The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a
court of competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic
relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. Private
respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue
in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal
assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly
exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is
estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over
the alleged conjugal property.
WIEGEL V SEMPIO-DIY
G.R. No. L-53703
August 19, 1986
FACTS: Karl Heinz Wiegel filed a petition for nullity of marriage with Lilia Olivia
Wiegel celebrated on July 1978 on the ground of Lilias previous existing marriage to

Edward A. Maxion in 1972. Although she admitted the existence of such marriage,
she claimed that it was null and void having been allegedly force into marriage.
ISSUE: WON the subsisting marriage of Lilia Olivia Wiegel with Edward A.
Maxion is void
HELD: Assuming that the marriage between Lilia Olivia Wiegel and Edward A.
Maxion was vitiated by force, the marriage will not be void but merely voidable, and
will remain valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear
that when she married respondent she was still validly married to her first husband,
consequently, her marriage to Karl Heinz Wiegel is void.
DONATO V LUNA
G.R. No. L-53642
April 15, 1988
FACTS: Information for bigamy was filed against Leonilo C. Donato, the petitioner,
based on the complaint of the private respondent, Paz B. Abayan who was married
to him on September 26, 1978 who filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court of Manila a civil action for declaration of nullity of her marriage with petitioner
on the ground that she married him without knowledge of his prior marriage to
Rosalinda R. Malupig on June 30, 1978. He claimed that his second marriage was
void because it was solemnized without a marriage license and that force, violence,
intimidation and undue influence were employed by private respondent to obtain
petitioner's consent to the marriage, although he also admitted in their joint
affidavit that they have lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of
wedlock for five years.
ISSUE: WON a criminal case for bigamy pending before the Court of First
Instance of Manila should be suspended in view of a civil case for
annulment of marriage pending before the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court on the ground that the latter constitutes a prejudicial
question
HELD: Petitioner Donato cannot apply the rule on prejudicial questions since a case
for annulment of marriage can be considered as a prejudicial question to the
bigamy case against the accused only if it is proved that the petitioner's consent to
such marriage was obtained by means of duress, violence and intimidation in order
to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary one and as
such the same cannot be the basis for conviction. The preceding elements do not
exist in the case at bar given that: (1) he had been living with private respondent
Paz B. Abayan as husband and wife for more than five years without the benefit of
marriage; (2) he came up with the story that his consent to the marriage was
secured through the use of force, violence, intimidation and undue influence more
than the lapse of one year from the solemnization of the second marriage; (3) it was
private respondent who eventually filed the civil action for nullity, and; (4) he

continued to live with private respondent until November 1978, when the latter left
their abode upon learning that Leonilo Donato was already previously married,
sufficient to say that the petitioner merely raised the issue of prejudicial question to
evade the prosecution of the criminal case.
In the light of the preceding factual circumstances, it can be seen that the
respondent Judge did not err in his earlier order. There is no pivotal issue that must
be pre-emptively resolved in Civil Case No. E-02627 before proceedings in the
criminal action for bigamy can be undertaken.