Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals and Gina Lao Tsoi

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

Facts:

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao married sometime on May 22, 1988. However, since their marriage and
cohabitation for 10 months, the wife stated that there was no sexual interaction between them. This
claim was also affirmed by the husband. Frustrated, Gina filed an annulment case against her husband
on the ground of psychological incapacity for being unable to fulfill the basic marital obligations. RTC
granted the annulment and was also affirmed by the CA. Hence, the petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the inability of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife for more than 10
months constitute a ground for annulment by reason of psychological incapacity.

Ruling:

One of the basic marital obligations under the Family Code is To procreated children based on the
universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage.
Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the
marriage. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation.

The prolonged and senseless refusal of the husband to fulfill such marital obligation is equivalent to
psychological incapacity.

Hereby, SC affirmed CAs ruling.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs Court of Appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina

G.R. No. 108763, Feb. 13, 1997

Facts:

The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the decision of the Court of
Appeals declaring the marriage of respondent and Reynaldo Molina void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity.

Reynaldo and Roridel Molina married on April 14, 1985 in which the union bore a son. However, after a
year marriage, Reynaldo began showing signs of irresponsibility and immaturity. He spends more time
with his peers, squandered his money, depended heavily on his parents financial assistance, and would
lie about his finances, which resulted to frequent quarrels between them. Due to their intense quarrel,
their relationship was estranged and the husband abandoned the both his wife and child with no
support. Roridel filed annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity in which the RTC granted. CA
also affirmed the ruling.
Issue:

Whether or not the CA is correct in ruling that irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities
constitute psychological incapacity.

Ruling:

Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a MENTAL incapacity and not physical. Mere
showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not show incapacity but appears
more of outright refusal and neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. It is essential to be
shown that parties are incapable of their responsibilities and duties as married persons due to
psychological illness and not physical. Evidence shows that spouses merely cannot get along with each
other.

Below are the