Name: Banayat, Juliana Sophia

Section: TTM 301 Proctor: Mr. Nico S. Pilapil

G.R. No. 119190. January 16, 1997

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.

FACTS:

- Gina and Chi Ming Tsoi married on May 22, 1988, at the Manila Cathedral in Intramuros
Manila. The first night of their married life was spent in the house of Gina’s mother. Both
of them slept in the same room and in one bed, but there was no sexual intercourse that
occurred between them. Similar events happened until the fourth night. From the day of
their marriage until the day of their separation, no intercourse has taken place between
them. For this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio
Macalalag, who is an urologist in the Chinese General Hospital. The results of Gina’s
tests were disclosed, but the petitioner’s results and medications were kept confidential.
Subsequently, Gina filed a motion to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to nullify
their marriage and the Trial Court granted the motion and stated their marriage void. Chi
Ming Tsoi, the petitioner, then filed a motion to the Supreme Court appealing that it is
Gina, respondent, who had a problem on sexual intimacy.

ISSUE:

- Does refusal to engage in sexual intercourse imply a psychological incapacity to meet the
conditions of marriage?

HELD:
- Yes, because a protracted unwillingness to have sexual relations with his or her spouse
indicates psychological incapacity. Chi Ming Tsoi claimed that he is unwilling to have
sexual relations with his wife, whom he loves and who has not resisted his alleged
attempts. This is an indication of a personality disorder that is linked to a psychological
disorder. The Supreme Court denied the petition because there was insufficient proof.
Furthermore, the petitioner made various incorrect points. One, he stated that there is no
real evidence as to who is suffering from psychological incapacity among them. Second,
he tried to have sex with the respondent, but she declined. He went on to say that one
probable cause for her refusal may not connote a psychological incapacity, but a
physical disorder. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's claims, declaring the
respondent appellate court's decision to be upheld. The Court rejected the first argument
because unwillingness to engage in sexual intercourse indicates psychological incapacity.
For the second argument, the Court noted that if such was the case, the petitioner should
have communicated what was worrying her with the respondent, but he never did.
- IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals dares November 29, 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects and the petition
is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
G.R. No. 126010 December 8, 1999

LUCITA ESTRELLA HERNANDEZ, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIO C. HERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS:

- Petitioner Lucita Estrella Hernandez and private respondent Mario C. Hernandez were
married at the Silang Catholic Parish Church.
- Three children were born to them, namely, Maie,... Lyra,... On July 10, 1992, petitioner
filed before the Regional Trial Court... a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage
to private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. She alleged
that from the time of their marriage up to... the time of the filing of the suit, private
respondent failed to perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the
management of the household, devoting most of his time engaging in drinking sprees
with his friends. She further claimed that private respondent,... after they were married,
cohabited with another woman with whom he had an illegitimate child, while having
affairs with different women, and that, because of his promiscuity, private respondent
endangered her health by infecting her with a sexually transmissible disease (STD).
- She averred that the private respondent was irresponsible, immature and unprepared for
the duties of a married life. Petitioner prayed that for having abandoned the family,
private respondent be ordered to give support to their three children in the total amount of
P9,000.00 every month purchased during the marriage, as well as the jeep which private
respondent took with... him when he left the conjugal home.
- Petitioner and private respondent met in 1977 at the Philippine Christian University in
Dasmariñas, Cavite.
- Petitioner, who is five years older than private respondent, was then in her first year of
teaching zoology and botany. Private respondent, a college freshman, was her... student
for two consecutive semesters. They became sweethearts in February 1979 when she was
no longer private respondent's teacher. On January 1, 1981, they were married.
- Private respondent continued his studies for two more years. His parents paid for his
tuition fees, while petitioner provided his allowances and other financial needs. The
family income came from petitioner's salary as a faculty member of the Philippine
Christian University.
- Petitioner augmented her earnings by selling "Tupperware" products, as well as engaging
in the buy-and-sell of coffee, rice and polvoron.
- From 1983 up to 1986, as private respondent could not find a stable job, it was agreed
that he would help petitioner in her businesses by delivering orders to customers.
However, because her husband was a spendthrift and had other women, petitioner's
business suffered. Private respondent often had smoking and drinking sprees with his
friends and betted on fighting cocks. In 1982, after the birth of their first child, petitioner
discovered two love letters written by a certain Realita Villena to private respondent. She
knew Villena as a married student whose husband was working in Saudi Arabia. When
petitioner confronted private respondent, he admitted having an extra-marital affair with
Villena. Petitioner then pleaded with Villena to end her relationship with private
respondent. For his part, private respondent said he would end the affairs, but he did not
keep his promise. Instead, he left the conjugal home and abandoned petitioner and their
child. When private respondent came back, however, petitioner accepted him, despite
private respondent's infidelity in the hope of saving their marriage.
- Upon the recommendation of a family friend, private respondent was able to get a job at
Reynolds Philippines, Inc. in San Agustin, Dasmariñas, Cavite in 1986. However, private
respondent was employed only until March 31, 1991, because he availed himself of the
early retirement plan offered by the company. He received P53, 000.00 in retirement pay,
but instead of spending the amount for the needs of the family, private respondent spent
the money on him and consumed the entire amount within four months of his retirement.
- While private respondent worked at Reynolds Philippines, Inc., his smoking, drinking,
gambling and womanizing became worse. Petitioner discovered that private respondent
carried on relationships with different women. He had relations with a certain Edna who
worked at Yazaki;
- Angie, who was an operator of a billiard hall; Tess, a "Japayuki"; Myrna Macatangay, a
secretary at the Road Master Driver's School in Bayan, Dasmariñas, Cavite, with whom
 he cohabited for quite a while; and, Ruth Oliva, by whom he had a daughter named
Margie P. Oliva
- When petitioner confronted private respondent about his relationship with Tess, he beat
her up.
- According to petitioner, private respondent engaged in extreme promiscuous conduct
during the latter part of 1986. As a result, private respondent contracted gonorrhea and
infected petitioner. They both received treatment.
- Petitioner averred that on one occasion of a heated argument, private respondent hit their
eldest child who was then barely a year old. Private respondent is not close to any of their
children as he was never affectionate and hardly spent time with them.
- Petitioner told private respondent of her intention to file a petition for the annulment of
their marriage.
- It does not appear that private respondent ever replied to petitioner's letter. By this time,
he had already abandoned petitioner and their children. In October 1992, petitioner
learned that private respondent left for the Middle East. Since then, private respondent's
whereabouts had been unknown.
- On April 10, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for
annulment of marriage filed by petitioner.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming the decision of
the trial court.

ISSUES:

- Whether or not marriage between the petitioner and the respondent should be annulled
due to the psychological incapacity of the respondent.

HELD:

- "Psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as
so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live
together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There 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.
The law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse to
have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the
Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of
nullity of the void marriage to be "legitimate."
- In the instant case, other than her self-serving declarations, petitioner failed to establish
the fact that at the time they were married, private respondent was suffering from a
psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to assume the essential
duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities.
- No evidence was presented to show that private respondent was not cognizant of the
basic marital obligations. It was not sufficiently proved that private respondent was really
incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological nature, and
not merely physical.
- However, private respondent's alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or
perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for finding that he
is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family
Code.
- It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which
make private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
marital state, and not merely due to private respondent's youth and self-conscious feeling
of being handsome, as the appellate court held.
- Moreover, expert testimony should have been presented to establish the precise cause of
private respondent's psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that it existed at the
inception of the marriage. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests
upon petitioner.
- We, therefore, find no reason to reverse the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals whose
conclusions, affirming the trial court's finding with regard to the non-existence of private
respondent's psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage, are entitled to great
 weight and even finality. Only where it is shown that such findings are whimsical,
capricious, and arbitrary can these be overturned.

- WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.