Chi Ming Tsoi v.

CA
G.R. No. 119190, Jan. 16, 1997

FACTS: Ching married Gina on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila. After
the celebration and reception, they proceeded to the house of the Ching Ming Tsois mother.
There they slept together on the same bed in the same room for the first night of their married
life but nothing happened, contrary to what she expected. The same happened to the
subsequent nights. In an effort to have their honey moon in a private place where they can
enjoy together during their first week as husband and wife they went to Baguio City. But Ching
brought along his mother, uncle and nephew. During the time they were in Baguio, still no
sexual intercourse happened because Ching avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta
time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room. They slept together in the
same room and on the same bed for 10 months but they never had sex. Gina claims that she
did not even see her husbands private parts nor did he see hers. Because of this, they
submitted themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag. Results showed that
Gina is healthy, normal and still a virgin while Chings examination was kept confidential. Gina
claims that her husband is impotent, a closet homosexual (she has seen him using an eyebrow
pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother), and only married her to acquire or
maintain his residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a
normal man. Ching denied the allegations. He claimed that if their marriage shall be annulled by
reason of psychological incapacity, the fault lies with Gina. He does not want their marriage
annulled because he loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and he is physically and
psychologically capable, and whatever differences they have are reconcilable and curable.
Ching admitted that they havent had sexual intercourse yet but it was because of Ginas refusal
and whenever he caresses her private parts, she always removed his hands.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ching is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage

HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals in
rendering as VOID the marriage entered into by Ching and Gina on May 22, 1988. 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. The Supreme Court held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual
intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity.

Domingo vs. CA
226 SCRA 572

FACTS: Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto Domingo in 1976, filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property. She did not know that Domingo
had been previously married to Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969. She came to know the previous
marriage when the latter filed a suit of bigamy against her. Furthermore, when she came home
from Saudi during her one-month leave from work, she discovered that Roberto cohabited with
another woman and had been disposing some of her properties which is administered by
Roberto. The latter claims that because their marriage was void ab initio, the declaration of
such voidance is unnecessary and superfluous. On the other hand, Soledad insists the
declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the purpose of remarriage, but in order to provide
a basis for the separation and distribution of properties acquired during the marriage.

ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration should only be filed for purposes of
remarriage.

HELD: The declaration of the nullity of marriage is indeed required for purposed of
remarriage. However, it is also necessary for the protection of the subsequent spouse who
believed in good faith that his or her partner was not lawfully married marries the same. With
this, the said person is freed from being charged with bigamy.
When a marriage is declared void ab initio, law states that final judgment shall provide for the
liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support
of the common children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters
had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. Soledads prayer for separation of
property will simply be the necessary consequence of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity
of their marriage. Hence, the petitioners suggestion that for their properties be separated, an
ordinary civil action has to be instituted for that purpose is baseless. The Family Code has
clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the
separation of property according to the regime of property relations governing them.




Leouel Santos vs. CA
GR No. 112019, January 4, 1995

FACTS: Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in Iloilo. The two got married
in 1986 before a municipal trial court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The
couple lived with Julias parents at the J. Bedia Compound. Julia gave birth to a baby boy in
1987 and was named as Leouel Santos Jr. Occasionally, the couple will quarrel over a number
of things aside from the interference of Julias parents into their family affairs.
Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouels pleas to dissuade her. Seven months
after her departure, she called her husband and promised to return home upon the expiration
of her contract in July 1989 but she never did. Leouel got a chance to visit US where he
underwent a training program under AFP, he desperately tried to locate or somehow get in
touch with Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
Leouel filed a complaint to have their marriage declared void under Article 36 of the Family
Code. He argued that failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with him for more than
5 years are circumstances that show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into
married life.

ISSUE: Whether or not their marriage can be considered void under Article 36 of the Family
Code.

HELD: The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity
to the most serious cases of personal disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This condition must exist at the time
the marriage is celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present
situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers
to every individual problem.





Republic v. Quintero-Hamano
G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004

FACTS: Lolita and Toshio started a common-law relationship in Japan in October 1986. They
later lived in the Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio went back to Japan and stayed
there for half of 1987. On November 16, 1987, she gave birth to their child. They were married
with MTC of Bacoor, Cavite. One month after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and
promised to return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his family. After sending money
to respondent for two months, Toshio stopped giving financial support. She wrote him several
times but he never responded. Sometime in 1991, respondent learned from her friends that
Toshio visited the Philippines but he did not bother to see her and their child. Hence, she filed
for a declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC
declared their marriage null and void because he failed to fulfill his obligations as husband of
the petitioner and father to his daughter. CA affirmed RTCs ruling.

ISSUE: WON abandonment by one spouse tantamount to psychological incapacity

HELD: Mere abandonment by Toshio of his family and his insensitivity to them did not
automatically constitute psychological incapacity. His behavior merely indicated simple
inadequacy in the personality of a spouse falling short of reasonable expectations. Respondent
failed to prove any severe and incurable personality disorder on the part of Toshio, in
accordance with the guidelines set in Molina.










Choa vs. Choa
GR No. 1473376, November 26, 2002

FACTS: Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. They have 2 children namely Cheryl
Lynne and Albryan. In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he
filed an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on
psychological incapacity. The case went to trial and the trial court further held that Alfonso
presented quantum evidence that Leni needs to controvert for the dismissal of the case.
Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and deportation which shows
latters psychological incapacity because according to him it clearly showed that his wife not
only wanted him behind bars but also to banish outside the country.

ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the declaration of
nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD: The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the case do not in
any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife. The evidence was insufficient
and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained
about three aspects of Lenis personality namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and
lack of an intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or collectively,
constitutes psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the performance of
marital obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities
does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to identify and prove root
cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It just established that the spouses had an
incompatibility or a defect that could possibly be treated or alleviated through
psychotherapy. The totality of evidence presented was completely insufficient to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric or psychological
examination.



David Dedel vs CA and Sharon Corpuz Dedel
G. R. No. 151867 January 29, 2004

FACTS: In 1966, David and Sharon married each other. Theyve had four children since then.
David then found out that Sharon is irresponsible as a wife and as a mother because during the
marriage Sharon had extra-marital affairs with various other guys particularly with one Mustafa
Ibrahim, a Jordanian, with whom she had 2 children. She even married Ibrahim. David averred
that Sharon is psychologically incapacitated and David submitted the findings of Dr. Dayan
which shows that Sharon is indeed psychologically incapacitated. Dr. Dayan declared that
Sharon was suffering from Anti-Social Personality Disorder exhibited by her blatant display of
infidelity; that she committed several indiscretions and had no capacity for remorse, even
bringing with her the two children of Mustafa Ibrahim to live with petitioner. Such immaturity
and irresponsibility in handling the marriage like her repeated acts of infidelity and
abandonment of her family are indications of Anti-Social Personality Disorder amounting to
psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage.

ISSUE: Whether or not PI has been proven.

HELD: PI is not proven in court in this case. The evidence is not sufficient. PI is intended to the
most serious cases of personality disorders which make one be incapable of performing the
essential marital obligations. Sharons sexual infidelity does not constitute PI nor does it
constitute the other forms of psychoses which if existing at the inception of marriage, like the
state of a party being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article
46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should
occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article
55 of the Family Code. These provisions, however, do not necessarily preclude the possibility of
these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the
disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity. Sexual infidelity is not one of those contemplated
in law. Until further statutory or jurisprudential parameters are set or established, SI cannot be
appreciated in favor of the dissolution of marriage.




Morigo vs People
G.R.No. 145226 February 6, 2004

FACTS: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol for four years. The lost
contacts when the school year ended. When Lucio received a card from Lucia Barrete from
Singapore, constant communication took place between them. They later became sweethearts.
In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there. While in
Canada, they maintained constant communication. In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines
and proposed to petition appellant to join her in Canada. Both agreed to get married, thus they
were married on August 30, 1990 in Bohol. Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving
appellant Lucio behind. On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court a petition for
divorce against appellant which was granted on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February
17, 1992. On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago in
Bohol. On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of
the first marriage on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place.

ISSUE: Whether or not Morigo must have filed declaration for the nullity of his marriage with
Barrete before his second marriage in order to be free from the bigamy case.

HELD: Morigos marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there was no actual
marriage ceremony performed between them by a solemnizing officer instead they just merely
signed a marriage contract. The petitioner does not need to file declaration of the nullity of his
marriage when he contracted his second marriage with Lumbago. Hence, he did not commit
bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed.








Wiegel vs. Sempio-Dy
143 SCRA 449

FACTS: Karl Wiegel was married to Lilia Wiegel on July 1978. Lilia was married with a certain
Eduardo Maxion in 1972. Karl then filed a petition in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lilia on the ground of latters former
marriage. Having been allegedly force to enter into a marital union, she contents that the first
marriage is null and void. Lilia likewise alleged that Karl was married to another woman before
their marriage.

ISSUE: Whether or not Karls marriage with Lilia is void.

HELD: It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that her first marriage was vitiated with force
because it will not be void but merely voidable. Such marriage is valid until annulled. Since no
annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married Karl, she is still validly married
to her first husband. Consequently, her marriage to Karl is void. Likewise, there is no need of
introducing evidence on the prior marriage of Karl for then such marriage though void still
needs a judicial declaration before he can remarry. Accordingly, Karl and Lilias marriage are
regarded void under the law.












Valdes vs. RTC
260 SCRA 221

FACTS: Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married in 1971 and begotten 5
children. Valdez filed a petition in 1992 for a declaration of nullity of their marriage pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code, which was granted hence, marriage is null and void on the ground
of their mutual psychological incapacity. Stella and Joaquin are placed under the custody of
their mother while the other 3 siblings are free to choose which they prefer.
Gomez sought a clarification of that portion in the decision regarding the procedure for the
liquidation of common property in unions without marriage. During the hearing on the
motion, the children filed a joint affidavit expressing desire to stay with their father.

ISSUE: Whether or not the property regime should be based on co-ownership.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the
property relations of the parties are governed by the rules on co-ownership. Any property
acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint
efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as
having contributed thereto jointly if said partys efforts consisted in the care and maintenance
of the family.











People vs. Aragon
100 Phil 1033

FACTS: Proceso Rosima contracted marriage with Gorrea. While his marriage with the latter
subsist, he contracted a canonical marriage with Faicol. Gorrea is staying in Cebu while Faicol is
in Iloilo. He was a traveling salesman thus, he commuted between Iloilo and Cebu. When
Gorrea died, he brought Faicol to Cebu where the latter worked as teacher-nurse. She later on
suffered injuries in her eyes caused by physical maltreatment of Rosima and was sent to Iloilo
to undergo treatment. While she was in Iloilo, Rosima contracted a third marriage with
Maglasang. CFI-Cebu found him guilty of bigamy.

ISSUE: Whether or not the third marriage is null and void.

HELD: The action was instituted upon the complaint of the second wife whose marriage with
Rosima was not renewed after the death of the first wife and before the third marriage was
entered into. Hence, the last marriage was a valid one and prosecution against Rosima for
contracting marriage cannot prosper.













Mercado vs. Tan
337 SCRA 122

FACTS: Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva in 1976 before he
contracted marriage with Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims she did not know. Tan
filed bigamy against Mercado and after a month the latter filed an action for declaration of
nullity of marriage against Oliva. The decision in 1993 declared marriage between Mercado and
Oliva null and void.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of nullity
of the former marriage.

HELD: A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent
one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first
obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier
union is characterized by statute as void.
In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva right
after Tan filed bigamy case. Hence, by then, the crime had already been consummated. He
contracted second marriage without the judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the
first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge.