Chi Ming Tsoi vs.

CA
GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997
FACTS:
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their
wedding, they proceed to the house of defendants mother. There was no sexual
intercourse between them during their first night and same thing happened until their
fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio
but Ginas relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the
defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at
the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same bed
but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989.
The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband
was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were allegations that the
reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the
country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage
declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter
does not want to have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much, he has no
defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and since their
relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi
submitted himself to another physical examination and the result was there is not
evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.
ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife
constitutes psychological incapacity.
HELD:
The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly
indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court
clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance
tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential
marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals
attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore,
one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children
thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and
wholeness of the marriage.

Antonio vs. Reyes

GR No. 155800, March 10, 2006
FACTS:
Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 36 years of age met in 1989.
Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married at Manila City Hall and then a
subsequent church wedding at Pasig in December 1990. A child was born but died 5
months later. Reyes persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her
occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things. She even did not
conceal bearing an illegitimate child, which she represented to her husband as adopted
child of their family. They were separated in August 1991 and after attempt for
reconciliation, he finally left her for good in November 1991. Petitioner then filed in
1993 a petition to have his marriage with Reyes declared null and void anchored in
Article 36 of the Family Code.
ISSUE: Whether Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for
declaring their marriage null and void.
HELD:
Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of
marriage as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them. The petitioner, aside from
his own testimony presented a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist who attested that
constant lying and extreme jealousy of Reyes is abnormal and pathological and
corroborated his allegations on his wifes behavior, which amounts to psychological
incapacity. Respondents fantastic ability to invent, fabricate stories and letters of
fictitious characters enabled her to live in a world of make-believe that made her
psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and
significance to her marriage. The root causes of Reyes psychological incapacity have
been medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts. The
gravity of respondents psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a
restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent. It
would be difficult for an inveterate pathological liar to commit the basic tenets of
relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect. Furthermore, Reyes case
is incurable considering that petitioner tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remain
unchanged.
Hence, the court conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for
declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

G.R. NO. 94053 March 17, 1993

Republic of the Philippines vs. Nolasco
FACTS:
Gregorio Nolasco, a seaman, first met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in England. After
that, she lived with him on his ship for 6 months. After his seaman's contract has expired,
he brought her to his hometown in San Jose, Antique. They got married in January 1982.
After the marriage celebration, he got another employment contract and left the province.
In January 1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother that 15 days after Janet gave
birth to their son, she left. He cut short his contract to find Janet. He returned home in
November 1983.
He did so by securing another contract which England is one of its port calls. He wrote
several letters to the bar where he and Janet first met, but all were returned to him. He
claimed that he inquired from his friends but they too had no news about Janet. In 1988,
Nolasco filed before the RTC of Antique a petition for the declaration of presumptive
death of his wife Janet.
RTC granted the petition. The Republic through the Solicitor-General, appealed to the
CA, contending that the trial court erred in declaring Janet presumptively dead because
Nolasco had failed to show that there existed a well-founded belief for such declaration.
CA affirmed the trial court's decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.
RULING:
No. Nolasco failed to prove that he had complied with the third requirement under the
Article 41 of the Family Code, the existence of a "well-founded belief" that Janet is
already dead.
Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption to arise has been shortened to 4
years; however, there is a need for judicial declaration of presumptive death to enable the
spouse present to marry. However, Article 41 imposes a stricter standard before
declaring presumptive death of one spouse. It requires a "well-founded belief" that the
absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be
granted.
In the case at bar, the Court found Nolasco's alleged attempt to ascertain about Janet's
whereabouts too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or well-founded belief that she
was already dead.

Nolasco, after returning from his employment, instead of seeking help of local authorities
or of the British Embassy, secured another contract to London. Janet's alleged refusal to
give any information about her was too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to
locate her. He did not explain why he took him 9 months to finally reached San Jose after
he asked leave from his captain. He refused to identify his friends whom he inquired
from. When the Court asked Nolasco about the returned letters, he said he had lost them.
Moreover, while he was in London, he did not even dare to solicit help of authorities to
find his wife.
The circumstances of Janet's departure and Nolasco's subsequent behavior make it very
difficult to regard the claimed belief that Janet was dead a well-founded one.
Article 149 of the Family Code
The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basic social institution which public
policy cherishes and protects. Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no
custom, practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given
effect.
Armas vs. Calisterio
GR No. 136467, April 6, 2000
FACTS:
Teodorico Calisterio, husband of Marietta Calisterio, the respondent, died intestate in
April 1992 leaving several parcel of land estimated value of P604,750.00. He was the
second husband of Marietta who was previously married with William Bounds in January
1946. The latter disappeared without a trace in February 1947. 11 years later from the
disappearance of Bounds, Marietta and Teodorico were married in May 1958 without
Marietta securing a court declaration of Bounds presumptive death.
Antonia Armas y Calisterio, surviving sister of Teodorico filed a petition claiming to be
the sole surviving heir of the latter and that marriage between Marietta and his brother
being allegedly bigamous is thereby null and void. She prayed that her son Sinfroniano
be appointed as administrator, without bond, of the estate of the deceased and inheritance
be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the estate would have been settled.
ISSUE: Whether Marrieta and Teodoricos marriage was void due to the absence of the
declaration of presumptive death.
HELD:
The marriage between the respondent and the deceased was solemnized in May 1958
where the law in force at that time was the Civil Code and not the Family Code which
only took effect in August 1988. Article 256 of the Family Code itself limit its
retroactive governance only to cases where it thereby would not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Since Civil
Code provides that declaration of presumptive death is not essential before contracting

marriage where at least 7 consecutive years of absence of the spouse is enough to remarry
then Marrietas marriage with Teodorico is valid and therefore she has a right can claim
portion of the estate.