Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Case Digests Legal Research

    Uploaded by

    MARY CHRISTINE JOY E. BAQUIRING
    This document contains summaries of 3 case digests: 1) Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals involved the annulment of a marriage due to refusal of sexual intercourse, which was ruled as psychological incapacity. 2) Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals involved the validity of a marriage where the husband was financially irresponsible and abandoned his family, which was ruled as valid due to lack of evidence of psychological incapacity. 3) Marjorie Tocao v. Court of Appeals involved a dispute over partnership profits, which was ruled in favor of the plaintiff due to evidence that an oral partnership agreement existed between the parties.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digests Legal Research

    Uploaded by

    MARY CHRISTINE JOY E. BAQUIRING
    26 views3 pages
    This document contains summaries of 3 case digests: 1) Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals involved the annulment of a marriage due to refusal of sexual intercourse, which was ruled as psychological incapacity. 2) Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals involved the validity of a marriage where the husband was financially irresponsible and abandoned his family, which was ruled as valid due to lack of evidence of psychological incapacity. 3) Marjorie Tocao v. Court of Appeals involved a dispute over partnership profits, which was ruled in favor of the plaintiff due to evidence that an oral partnership agreement existed between the parties.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document contains summaries of 3 case digests: 1) Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals involved the annulment of a marriage due to refusal of sexual intercourse, which was ruled as psychological incapacity. 2) Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals involved the validity of a marriage where the husband was financially irresponsible and abandoned his family, which was ruled as valid due to lack of evidence of psychological incapacity. 3) Marjorie Tocao v. Court of Appeals involved a dispute over partnership profits, which was ruled in favor of the plaintiff due to evidence that an oral partnership agreement existed between the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views3 pages

    Case Digests Legal Research

    Uploaded by

    MARY CHRISTINE JOY E. BAQUIRING
    This document contains summaries of 3 case digests: 1) Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals involved the annulment of a marriage due to refusal of sexual intercourse, which was ruled as psychological incapacity. 2) Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals involved the validity of a marriage where the husband was financially irresponsible and abandoned his family, which was ruled as valid due to lack of evidence of psychological incapacity. 3) Marjorie Tocao v. Court of Appeals involved a dispute over partnership profits, which was ruled in favor of the plaintiff due to evidence that an oral partnership agreement existed between the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Krizza Nadine A.

    Calmerin
    1l-Al-Farabi
    Legal Research
    4 October 2021

    CASE DIGESTS

    1. CHI MING TSOI, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND GINA LAO TSOI, Respondents
    G. R. No. 119190
    16 January 1997

    Facts:
    The petitioner married the respondent on May 22, 1998 at Manila Cathedral,
    Intramuros, Manila. After the wedding reception, the couple headed to the house of the
    petitioner’s mother and slept together in the same bed. There was no sexual intercourse
    that took place, contrary to what the respondent expects as to what newlyweds do on their
    first wedding night. They slept together from the day of their marriage until March 15,
    1989, but there was no sexual intercourse.
    On January 20, 1989, the couple submitted themselves for medical examinations with
    the results that the respondent is in a healthy state, is normal and is still a virgin whereas
    the petitioner’s results and the prescribed medicines were kept private. These made the
    respondent claim that her husband is impotent and a closet homosexual, and that he only
    married her to acquire and maintain his residency in the Philippines. The respondent is not
    willing to reconcile with her husband and filed a case in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
    City for annulment of their marriage.
    The petitioner was not willing for annulment, given the following reasons:
    (1) He loves her very much; (2) he has no fault in his part as he is physically and
    psychologically capable; and (3) the differences between the two can still be
    reconciled, given that their relationship is still young.
    Petitioner has given two reasons on why the defendant filed this case against him which
    are (1) she is afraid to return the pieces of jewelry of his mother and (2) that her
    husband will consummate their marriage. Petitioner insisted for their marriage to stay
    valid and that if there was a ground of psychological incapacity, it would be on his wife.
    His medical report by Dr. Sergio Atienza, Jr. also showed no evidence of impotency.
    The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage was void, affirmed by the Court of
    Appeals. Hence, this petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
    Ruling:
    Yes. Refusal for sexual intercourse violates the marital obligations under the
    Family Code which is “To procreate children based on the universal principle that
    procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage.” Non-
    fulfillment of this obligation equates to psychological incapacity.
    Hence, petition is denied.

    2. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO


    MOLINA, Respondents
    G. R. No. 108763
    13 February 1997

    Facts:
    Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina got married in 1985, which after a year, Reynaldo
    manifested immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and a father by spending time and
    money with friends, being financially-dependent to his parents and being dishonest to his wife
    in regards of finances, leading to a heated quarrel. In 1987, Roridel quit her work and lived with
    her parents in Baguio City, Reynaldo left and abandoned Roridel and their child, never returned.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

    Ruling:
    No. Psychological incapacity is more than just misunderstanding and incompatibility
    between the married couple. The action of Reynaldo did not manifest grounds for psychological
    incapacity, Roridel’s evidence also suggests she and her husband cannot get along. An expert
    testimony by Dr. Sison also showed no incurable disorder on the marriage aside from mere
    incompatability. These facts don’t belong to the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code as
    characteristics of psychological incapacity. The marriage remains to be valid.

    3. MARJORIE TOCAO and WILLIAM T. BELO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and


    NENITA A. ANAY, Respondents
    G. R. No. 127405
    4 October 2000
    Facts:
    Civil Case No. 88-509 was filed by Nenita A. Anay on April 9, 1988 as a complaint for sum
    of money with damages against Marjorie D. Tocao and William Belo before the Regional Trial
    Court of Makati, Branch 140. Here are the facts of the case:
    Nenita A. Anay met William T. Belo, who was then the Vice-President for Operations of
    Ultra Clean Water Purifier. She was introduced to Marjorie Tocao, who wanted a joined venture
    with her for the importation and local distribution of kitchenware products. Anay was assigned
    to market the product financed by Belo due to her experience with West Bend Company. Belo
    acted as capitalist, Tocao as president and general manager, and Anay was the head of the
    marketing department. Anay was later appointed as Vice President for Sales.
    An agreement among the parties stated the exclusion of Belo’s name in the documents
    of their transactions with West Bend Company and used Anay’s name for cookware distribution
    from that company. The respondent would also be entitled to the following:
    (1) ten percent (10%) of annual net profits
    (2) commission of six percent (6%) of the overall weekly production
    (3) thirty percent (30%) of the sales
    (4) two percent (2%) for demonstration services
    This agreement was not put into writing.
    On October 9, 1987, Anay learned that Marjorie Tucao was no longer the Vice-President
    of Geminesse Enterprise and contacted Belo for her overriding commission. Anay received her
    five percent (5%) overriding commission up to December 1987. In 1998, the same commission
    was not given to her despite Geminisse Enterprise’s gross sales of P13, 300, 360.00 making
    Anay file the civil case.
    The trial court held that an oral partnership agreement existed among the parties,
    affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

    Issue:
    Whether or not there was a partnership agreement existing among the parties.

    Ruling:
    Yes.
    The Supreme Court held that for a partnership to have judicial personality, these
    requisites must be met: (1) two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money,
    property or industry to a common fund and (2) intention on the part of the partners to divide
    the profits among themselves. It may be constituted in any form, a public instrument is
    necessary only where the immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto.
    A partnership must be consensual either in an oral or written contract. Therefore, there
    was a partnership agreement on the parties.

    You might also like