Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA Facts: Chi Ming Tsoi (husband) married Gina Lao-Tsoi (wife) on May 22, 1988.

88. Though they slept together on the same bed, they did not have sexual intercourse for more than 9 months. Because of the lack of sexual intercourse, they submitted themselves for medical examinations to a urologist at the Chinese General Hospital, on January 20, 1989. o The wife was found normal, but the husbands results were kept confidential. o A second opinion found that Chi Ming Tsoi was not impotent. The wife asked for the marriage to be annulled on grounds of psychological incapacity, as proven by the husbands refusal to have sex with her. The husband countered that it was in fact the wife who did not want to have sex with him, and that if there were any differences between them, they could still be cured. [2]
i

iISSUES I. WON the lower court erred in fining that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making any findings of fact. II. WON the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent. III. WON the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have sex with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both. (Main issue) IV WON the lower court decided correctly that there was no collusion between parties. HELD: The petition is bereft of merit, and is denied. Judgment affirmed. Marriage is null and void. RATIO: 1. The judgment of the trial court was not based on stipulation of facts, but on a review of evidence on record. No need to find facts. 2. and 3. Yes, in this case, refusal to have sexual intercourse constitutes PI of both parties. It has not been determined which of the two parties refuses to have sexual contact, but this is immaterial because even the party with psych. Incapacity can file the claim. The fact is that no sexual contact has occurred. Even if the petitioner still claims he wants to have sex, he never asked why the wife always avoided having sex with him. Though it was proven that there was no physical incapacity, Catholic tribunals attribute the cause of simple refusal to perform essential marriage obligations not to stubborn refusal, but to psych. Incapacity. It is important to note that 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 non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. Thus, the failure of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife for over almost 10 months, shows an inability to understand the marital obligations required in marriage. ANTONIO VS REYES Facts: Leonilo Antonio would like to have his marriage to Maria Ivonne Reyes annulled on the ground of psych. Incapacity, as proven by her compulsive lying. She was shown to have lied about: (1) the fact that she previously gave birth to an illegitimate son,. (2) her brother-in-law, Edwin David, attempting to rape and kill her when in fact, no such incident occurred. (3) herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician, Dr. Consuelo Gardiner, and told some of her friends that she graduated with a degree in psychology, when she was neither.

(4) being a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with Blackgold Recording Company (Blackgold) (5)having friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez, (6) being a person of greater means (7) She also was very jealous of her husband when no basis therefore was present. ISSUE: WON, when the Molina guidelines were applied to the case, Maria Ivonne Reyes behavior constituted psychological incapacity. HELD: Yes, it did. Marriage declared null and void. Ratio: First. Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of his spouse. He had witnesses regarding his wifes behavior, as well as medical experts to discuss the condition. Second. The root cause of respondents psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified (witnesses), alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the trial courts decision. Third. Respondents psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage. Fourth. The gravity of respondents psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. It is immediately discernible that the parties had shared only a little over a year of cohabitation before the exasperated petitioner left his wife. Whatever such circumstance speaks of the degree of tolerance of petitioner, it likewise supports the belief that respondents psychological incapacity, as borne by the record, was so grave in extent that any prolonged marital life was dubitable. More disturbingly, they indicate a failure on the part of respondent to distinguish truth from fiction, or at least abide by the truth. Article 45 (3) and 46 do not apply because these concern the consent of the one lied to, and not that of the lying spouse. Fifth. Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. Article 68, in particular, enjoins the spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. A pathological liar would not seem to be able to do this.

Sixth. The Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila decreed the invalidity of the marriage in question in a Conclusion dated 30 March 1995, citing the lack of due discretion on the part of respondent. Such decree of nullity was affirmed by both the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, and the Roman Rota of the Vatican. In fact, respondents psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibiting respondent from contracting another marriage without the Tribunals consent. Seventh. Though the incurability was not definitely defined, it might be because this case was first put to trial before the Molina ruling. We are aware that in Pesca v. Pesca, the Court countered an argument that Molina and Santos should not apply retroactively. However, from the evidence shown, particularly that the wife still acted the same way after she attempted to reconcile, it was sufficiently proven that the lying was incurable.