Krizza Nadine A.

Calmerin
1l-Al-Farabi
Legal Research
4 October 2021

CASE DIGESTS

1. CHI MING TSOI, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND GINA LAO TSOI, Respondents
G. R. No. 119190
16 January 1997

Facts:
The petitioner married the respondent on May 22, 1998 at Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros, Manila. After the wedding reception, the couple headed to the house of the
petitioner’s mother and slept together in the same bed. There was no sexual intercourse
that took place, contrary to what the respondent expects as to what newlyweds do on their
first wedding night. They slept together from the day of their marriage until March 15,
1989, but there was no sexual intercourse.
On January 20, 1989, the couple submitted themselves for medical examinations with
the results that the respondent is in a healthy state, is normal and is still a virgin whereas
the petitioner’s results and the prescribed medicines were kept private. These made the
respondent claim that her husband is impotent and a closet homosexual, and that he only
married her to acquire and maintain his residency in the Philippines. The respondent is not
willing to reconcile with her husband and filed a case in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City for annulment of their marriage.
The petitioner was not willing for annulment, given the following reasons:
(1) He loves her very much; (2) he has no fault in his part as he is physically and
psychologically capable; and (3) the differences between the two can still be
reconciled, given that their relationship is still young.
Petitioner has given two reasons on why the defendant filed this case against him which
are (1) she is afraid to return the pieces of jewelry of his mother and (2) that her
husband will consummate their marriage. Petitioner insisted for their marriage to stay
valid and that if there was a ground of psychological incapacity, it would be on his wife.
His medical report by Dr. Sergio Atienza, Jr. also showed no evidence of impotency.
The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage was void, affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Ruling:
Yes. Refusal for sexual intercourse violates the marital obligations under the
Family Code which is “To procreate children based on the universal principle that
procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage.” Non-
fulfillment of this obligation equates to psychological incapacity.
Hence, petition is denied.

2. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO

MOLINA, Respondents
G. R. No. 108763
13 February 1997

Facts:
Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina got married in 1985, which after a year, Reynaldo
manifested immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and a father by spending time and
money with friends, being financially-dependent to his parents and being dishonest to his wife
in regards of finances, leading to a heated quarrel. In 1987, Roridel quit her work and lived with
her parents in Baguio City, Reynaldo left and abandoned Roridel and their child, never returned.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Ruling:
No. Psychological incapacity is more than just misunderstanding and incompatibility
between the married couple. The action of Reynaldo did not manifest grounds for psychological
incapacity, Roridel’s evidence also suggests she and her husband cannot get along. An expert
testimony by Dr. Sison also showed no incurable disorder on the marriage aside from mere
incompatability. These facts don’t belong to the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code as
characteristics of psychological incapacity. The marriage remains to be valid.

3. MARJORIE TOCAO and WILLIAM T. BELO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and

NENITA A. ANAY, Respondents
G. R. No. 127405
4 October 2000
Facts:
Civil Case No. 88-509 was filed by Nenita A. Anay on April 9, 1988 as a complaint for sum
of money with damages against Marjorie D. Tocao and William Belo before the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Branch 140. Here are the facts of the case:
Nenita A. Anay met William T. Belo, who was then the Vice-President for Operations of
Ultra Clean Water Purifier. She was introduced to Marjorie Tocao, who wanted a joined venture
with her for the importation and local distribution of kitchenware products. Anay was assigned
to market the product financed by Belo due to her experience with West Bend Company. Belo
acted as capitalist, Tocao as president and general manager, and Anay was the head of the
marketing department. Anay was later appointed as Vice President for Sales.
An agreement among the parties stated the exclusion of Belo’s name in the documents
of their transactions with West Bend Company and used Anay’s name for cookware distribution
from that company. The respondent would also be entitled to the following:
(1) ten percent (10%) of annual net profits
(2) commission of six percent (6%) of the overall weekly production
(3) thirty percent (30%) of the sales
(4) two percent (2%) for demonstration services
This agreement was not put into writing.
On October 9, 1987, Anay learned that Marjorie Tucao was no longer the Vice-President
of Geminesse Enterprise and contacted Belo for her overriding commission. Anay received her
five percent (5%) overriding commission up to December 1987. In 1998, the same commission
was not given to her despite Geminisse Enterprise’s gross sales of P13, 300, 360.00 making
Anay file the civil case.
The trial court held that an oral partnership agreement existed among the parties,
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a partnership agreement existing among the parties.

Ruling:
Yes.
The Supreme Court held that for a partnership to have judicial personality, these
requisites must be met: (1) two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money,
property or industry to a common fund and (2) intention on the part of the partners to divide
the profits among themselves. It may be constituted in any form, a public instrument is
necessary only where the immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto.
A partnership must be consensual either in an oral or written contract. Therefore, there
was a partnership agreement on the parties.