Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 312 views

    Tsoi, Molina, and Santos Case Comparison

    Uploaded by

    Francis Juarez
    In Tsoi (1997), the court ruled a marriage void due to the husband's psychological incapacity, as evidenced by his refusal to consummate the marriage for over 9 months. In Molina (1997), the court established rules for determining psychological incapacity and found that "opposing personalities" alone did not qualify. In Santos (1995), the court ruled that a wife's abandonment did not constitute psychological incapacity and refused to annul the marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tsoi, Molina, and Santos Case Comparison

    Uploaded by

    Francis Juarez
    312 views5 pages
    In Tsoi (1997), the court ruled a marriage void due to the husband's psychological incapacity, as evidenced by his refusal to consummate the marriage for over 9 months. In Molina (1997), the court established rules for determining psychological incapacity and found that "opposing personalities" alone did not qualify. In Santos (1995), the court ruled that a wife's abandonment did not constitute psychological incapacity and refused to annul the marriage.

    Original Description:

    A table that compares the three landmark cases regarding article 36 of the family code.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In Tsoi (1997), the court ruled a marriage void due to the husband's psychological incapacity, as evidenced by his refusal to consummate the marriage for over 9 months. In Molina (1997), the court established rules for determining psychological incapacity and found that "opposing personalities" alone did not qualify. In Santos (1995), the court ruled that a wife's abandonment did not constitute psychological incapacity and refused to annul the marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    312 views5 pages

    Tsoi, Molina, and Santos Case Comparison

    Uploaded by

    Francis Juarez
    In Tsoi (1997), the court ruled a marriage void due to the husband's psychological incapacity, as evidenced by his refusal to consummate the marriage for over 9 months. In Molina (1997), the court established rules for determining psychological incapacity and found that "opposing personalities" alone did not qualify. In Santos (1995), the court ruled that a wife's abandonment did not constitute psychological incapacity and refused to annul the marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    Case: Facts: Issue: Ruling:

    Tsoi (1997) *Gina married Chi Ming May *Whether their *The marriage was declared void. The senseless
    22, 1988. marriage is void refusal of Chi Ming to have sexual intercourse with
    for Chi Mings Gina, and in the process fulfill his marital
    *No attempt at sexual psychological obligation, is tantamount to psychological
    intercourse from day of marriage incapacity. incapacity.
    to March 15, 1989. *This Court, finding the gravity of the failed
    relationship in which the parties found
    *January 20, 1989 physical themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows
    examination, Gina healthy, Chi and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no
    Ming undisclosed. less but sustain the studied judgment of respondent
    appellate
    *Dr. Alteza declared the he was court.
    capable of having sexual
    intercourse with a woman.

    Molina (1997) *Roridel and Reynaldo were *WON *No, it is not. Molina Rules promulgated.
    married on April 14, 1985 "opposing and
    conflicting 1. Juridical antecedence
    *A son, Andrea Molina, was personalities" is 2. Gravity
    born equivalent to 3. Incurability
    psychological
    *After a year of marriage, incapacity The root cause of the psychological incapacity must
    Reynaldo showed signs of be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged
    immaturity and in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts
    irresponsibility as a husband and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
    and a father since he preferred to
    spend more time with his peers
    and friends on whom he
    squandered his money;
    *Reynaldo depended on his
    parents for aid and assistance,
    and was never honest with his
    wife in regard to their finances,
    resulting in frequent quarrels
    between them;

    * Sometime in Feb. 1986,


    Reynaldo was relieved of his job
    and since then, Roridel had been
    the sole breadwinner of the
    family

    *The couple had very intense


    quarrel, as a result of which,
    their relationship was estranged

    *Roridel resigned from her job


    and went to live with her parents

    *Reynaldo left Roridel and their


    child, and had since then
    abandoned
    them

    * Reynaldo had thus shown that


    he was psychologically
    incapable of
    complying with the essential
    marital obligations and was a
    highly immature and habitually
    quarrelsome individual who
    thought of himself as a king to
    be served

    * It would be the couples best


    interest to have their marriage
    declared null and void in order to
    free them from what appeared to
    be an incompatible marriage
    from the start
    * In his Answer, Reynaldo
    admitted that he and Roridel
    could no longer live together as
    husband and wife, but contended
    that their misunderstandings and
    frequent quarrels were due to (1)
    Roridels strange behavior of
    insisting on maintaining her
    group of friends after their
    marriage; (2) Roridels refusal to
    perform some of her marital
    duties such as cooking meals;
    and (3) Roridels failure to run
    the household and handle their
    finances.

    * Evidence for herein respondent


    wife consisted of her own
    testimony and that of her friends
    Rosemarie Ventura and Maria
    Leonora Padilla as well as of
    Ruth G. Lalas, a social worker,
    and of Dr. Teresita Hidalgo-
    Sison, a psychiatrist of the
    Baguio General Hospital and
    Medical Center.
    Santos (1995) *Leouel married Julia on *Whether the *NO, the marriage cannot be declared void. There is
    September 20, 1986 before the marriage should no psychological incapacity attendant in the case at
    MTC of Iloilo City. be declared void bar. Mere abandonment cannot qualify as
    on the ground of psychological
    psychological incapacity on the part of Julia.
    *Julia gave birth to a baby boy incapacity
    on July 18, 1987.

    *Frequent interference by Julias


    parents into their family affairs.
    Which caused arguments
    between the two.

    *May 18, 1988 Julia left for the


    USA to work as a nurse despite
    Leouels attempts to dissuade
    her.

    *Seven months after her


    departure, or on 01 January
    1989, Julia called up Leouel for
    the first time by long distance
    telephone. She promised to
    return home upon the
    expiration of her contract in July
    1989. She never did.

    *Leouel got a chance to visit the


    United States, where he
    underwent a training
    program under the auspices of
    the Armed Forces of the
    Philippines from 01 April up to
    25 August 1990, he desperately
    tried to locate, or to somehow
    get in touch with,
    Julia but all his efforts were of
    no avail.

    *Having failed to get Julia to


    somehow come home, Leouel
    filed with the regional trial
    Court of Negros Oriental,
    Branch 30, a complaint for
    "Voiding of marriage Under
    Article 36 of the Family Code"
    (docketed, Civil Case No. 9814).
    Summons was
    served by publication in a
    newspaper of general circulation
    in Negros Oriental.

    You might also like