Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA Facts: • • • Chi Ming Tsoi (husband) married Gina Lao-Tsoi (wife) on May 22, 1988

. Though they slept together on the same bed, they did not have sexual intercourse for more than 9 months. Because of the lack of sexual intercourse, they submitted themselves for medical examinations to a urologist at the Chinese General Hospital, on January 20, 1989. o The wife was found normal, but the husband’s results were kept confidential. o A second opinion found that Chi Ming Tsoi was not impotent. The wife asked for the marriage to be annulled on grounds of psychological incapacity, as proven by the husband’s refusal to have sex with her. The husband countered that it was in fact the wife who did not want to have sex with him, and that if there were any differences between them, they could still be cured. [2]

• •

Judgment affirmed. Marriage is null and void. and 3. (Main issue) IV WON the lower court decided correctly that there was no collusion between parties. shows an inability to understand the marital obligations required in marriage. he never asked why the wife always avoided having sex with him. 2. HELD: The petition is bereft of merit. She was shown to have lied about: (1) the fact that she previously gave birth to an illegitimate son. Incapacity can file the claim.. the failure of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife for over almost 10 months. Incapacity. WON the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent. refusal to have sexual intercourse constitutes PI of both parties. II. no such incident occurred. WON the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have sex with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both. but to psych.iISSUES I. Catholic tribunals attribute the cause of simple refusal to perform essential marriage obligations not to stubborn refusal. as proven by her compulsive lying. Though it was proven that there was no physical incapacity. Even if the petitioner still claims he wants to have sex. Incapacity. The judgment of the trial court was not based on stipulation of facts. No need to find facts. RATIO: 1. when she was neither. It is important to note that 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. ANTONIO VS REYES Facts: Leonilo Antonio would like to have his marriage to Maria Ivonne Reyes annulled on the ground of psych. and is denied. The fact is that no sexual contact has occurred. WON the lower court erred in fining that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making any findings of fact. and told some of her friends that she graduated with a degree in psychology. Edwin David. but on a review of evidence on record. It has not been determined which of the two parties refuses to have sexual contact. . Consuelo Gardiner. Yes. (2) her brother-in-law. III. in this case. Thus. Dr. (3) herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician." Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. attempting to rape and kill her when in fact. but this is immaterial because even the party with psych.

. Article 45 (3) and 46 do not apply because these concern the consent of the one lied to. sufficiently proven by experts. Fifth. respect and fidelity. Second. The gravity of respondent’s psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. was so grave in extent that any prolonged marital life was dubitable. they indicate a failure on the part of respondent to distinguish truth from fiction. enjoins the spouses to live together. He had witnesses regarding his wife’s behavior. (6) being a person of greater means (7) She also was very jealous of her husband when no basis therefore was present. it likewise supports the belief that respondent’s psychological incapacity. It is immediately discernible that the parties had shared only a little over a year of cohabitation before the exasperated petitioner left his wife. Respondent’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage. and not that of the lying spouse. ISSUE: WON. and render mutual help and support. and clearly explained in the trial court’s decision. Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of his spouse. in particular. when the Molina guidelines were applied to the case. Whatever such circumstance speaks of the degree of tolerance of petitioner. Maria Ivonne Reyes’ behavior constituted psychological incapacity. as borne by the record. More disturbingly. Fourth. Article 68. A pathological liar would not seem to be able to do this. Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. it did. or at least abide by the truth.(4) being a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with Blackgold Recording Company (Blackgold) (5)having friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez. Ratio: First. observe mutual love. alleged in the complaint. Marriage declared null and void. HELD: Yes. The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified (witnesses). Third. as well as medical experts to discuss the condition.

Sixth. from the evidence shown. Pesca. However. it might be because this case was first put to trial before the Molina ruling. We are aware that in Pesca v. particularly that the wife still acted the same way after she attempted to reconcile. Such decree of nullity was affirmed by both the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal. Seventh. respondent’s psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibiting respondent from contracting another marriage without the Tribunal’s consent. it was sufficiently proven that the lying was incurable. the Court countered an argument that Molina and Santos should not apply retroactively. The Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila decreed the invalidity of the marriage in question in a Conclusion dated 30 March 1995. In fact. citing the “lack of due discretion” on the part of respondent. . Though the incurability was not definitely defined. and the Roman Rota of the Vatican.