CHI MING TSOI VS.

CA


FACTS:
Private respondent Gina Loi and petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi were married on May 22, 1988. From the first
night as husband and wife until their separation, sexual intercourse happened between them. According
to Gina, Tsi Ming Choi always refuse to have sexual intercourse with her. A case was then filed by Gina
to declare the annulment of her marriage with Chi Ming Tsoi on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Gina alleged that Chi Ming was impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not show him his penis
(clinically found to be only 3 inches and 1 cm. when erect). Defendant admitted that no sexual contact
was ever made and according to him everytime he wanted to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she
always avoided him and whenever he caressed her private parts she always removed his hands.

ISSUE:
WON the refusal to have sexual intercourse constitutes psychological incapacity and is ground for
annulment of marriage?

HELD:
Yes. If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage
obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to
psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to
psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or
her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity. 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
nonfulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of marriage.















NAVALES VS. NAVALES

FACTS:
In 1986, Nilda and Reynaldo met in a local bar where Nilda was a waitress. Because of his fear that Nilda
may be wed to an American, Reynaldo married Nilda in 1988. Reynaldo is aware that Nilda has an
illegitimate child out of wedlock.

The 1st year of their marriage went well until Nilda began to work when she neglected some of her
duties as a wife. She later worked as a gym instructor and according to Reynaldos allegations; her job
makes her flirt with her male clients. She also projected herself as single and refused to have a child with
Reynaldo because that would only destroy her figure. Reynaldo then filed a petition to have their
marriage be annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity. Reynaldo presented findings of a
psychologist who concluded that based on Nildas acts, Nilda is a nymphomaniac, who has a borderline
personality, a social deviant, an alcoholic, and suffering from anti-social personality disorder, among
others, which illnesses are incurable and are the causes of Nildas psychological incapacity to perform
her marital role as wife to Reynaldo. Nilda on her part attacked Reynaldos allegations. She said that it is
actually Reynaldo who is a womanizer and that in fact she has filed a case of concubinage against him
which was still pending. She also said that she only needs the job in order to support herself because
Reynaldo is not supporting her.

The RTC and the CA ruled in favor of Reynaldo.

ISSUE: WON being a nymphomaniac constitutes a psychological incapacity and is ground for the
annulment of marriage?

HELD:
No. Psychological incapacity, in order to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
family code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of
marriage. It is a malady that is so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. Psychological incapacity must be
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.

Reynaldo and his witnesses sought to establish that Nilda was a flirt before marriage. Still, Nildas acts
are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is so serious, incurable or grave as
contemplated by article 36 of the family code.






TE VS. TE

FACTS:

In January 1996, Edward Kenneth Ngo-Te and Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te met. March 1996, they
eloped to cebu, but as soon as their survival money was depleted they returned to Manila. April 23,
1996, Rowenas uncle brought Edward (25y/o) and Rowena (20y/o) to a court to be married. Sometime
in June, Edward returned to his home to live with his parents, because his wife did not want to live at his
parents home and also suggested that they live apart. After almost four years, on January 18, 2000,
Edward filed a petition before the RTC of Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage on the ground
of psychological incapacity. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties
psychologically incapacitated. Petitioners behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent
personality disorder, and the respondents, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder.

Trial court rendered its decision declaring the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that
both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. On
review, the appellate court reversed and set aside the trials court ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed to
prove the psychological incapacity of respondent.

ISSUE: WON there exist a psychological incapacity that warrants the annulment of marriage?

HELD:

Both parties afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage
is, thus, declared null and void. For the fulfillment of the obligations of marriage depends on the
strength of this interpersonal relationship. A serious incapacity for interpersonal sharing and support is
held to impair the relationship and consequently, the ability to fulfill the essential marital obligations.
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in
the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of
the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.










TING VS. VELEZ-TING

FACTS:

Benjamin Ting (Benjamin) and respondent Carmen Velez-Ting (Carmen) first met in 1972 while they
were classmates in medical school. They fell in love, and they were wed on July 26, 1975 in Cebu City
when respondent was already pregnant with their first child. After being married for more than 18 years
to petitioner and while their youngest child was only two years old, Carmen filed a verified petition
before the Cebu City RTC praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on Article 36 of
the Family Code. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of
the celebration of their marriage, which, however, only became manifest thereafter.

In her complaint, Carmen stated that prior to their marriage, she was already aware that Benjamin used
to drink and gamble occasionally with his friends. But after they were married, petitioner continued to
drink regularly and would go home at about midnight or sometimes in the wee hours of the morning
drunk and violent. Because of his drinking habit, Benjamins job as anesthesiologist was affected.
Respondent tried to talk to her husband about the latters drinking problem, but Benjamin refused to
acknowledge the same. Benjamin denied the allegations in his answer.

Lower court rendered its Decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and
void but CA reversed the ruling stating that the conclusion pertaining to psychological incapacity is
based only on theories contrary to the guidelines set in Republic vs. CA (Molina).

ISSUE: WON the marriage of the parties be annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity?

HELD:

No. Courts should interpret Article 36 of the FC on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the
findings of experts and researchers in psychology disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals. Far
from abandoning Republic vs. CA and Molina, the court in Ngo-Te vs. Yu-Te simply suggested relaxation
of the stringent requirements set forth therein.

The totality of evidence adduced by the respondent insufficient to prove that petitioner is
psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a husband, and more particularly, that
he suffered from such psychological incapacity as of the date the marriage. The intendment of the law
has been to confine the application of article 36 to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. The psychological illness that must have afflicted a party at the inception of the marriage
should be a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she is about to assume.