G.R. NO.

112019 January 04, 1995

LEOUEL SANTOS VERSUS THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND
JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS
Fact:
Leouel and Julia got married on 20 of September 1986 at the Municipal
trial Court by Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Ilo-ilo City. On May 18, 1988, Julia
left for the U.S to work as a nurse. And seven months after her departure Julia
called up to Leouel for the first time and promised that she will return home
upon the expiration of her contract. After that she did not communicate with
Leouel and did not return to the county. In 1991, Leouel filed with the RTC of
Negros Oriental, a complaint for voiding the marriage under Article 36 of
Family Code. The RTC dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed the
dismissal.
Issue:
Does the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to
communicate with him, for more than five years constitute psychological
capacity?
Ruling:
No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her
husband Leouel for more than five years does not constitute psychological
incapacity.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by a:
a. Gravity
b. Juridical antecedence
c. Incurability
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than mental incapacity
that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
marriage which, as so expressed by article 68 of the Family Code. Include

their mutual obligation to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and
render help and support.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorder
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the
time the marriage is celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even
desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably neither law nor society itself
can always provide all the specific answer to every individual.

PETITION DENIED

G.R. NO. 119190, JANUARY 16, 1997

CHI MING TSOI VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS AND GINA LAO TSOI
Fact:
On May 22, 1988, Gina Lao married Chi Ming Tsoi at the Manila
Cathedral. Since their marriage until their separation on March 15, 1989, ten
month of being marriage there was no sexual contract between them. Gina
Lao filed a case of annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity with the RTC of Quezon City. The RTC granted annulment, which
was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Issue:
Is the failure of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife from the time of the marriage until their separation on May 15, 1989 a
ground for psychological incapacity?
Ruling:
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.
In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of
the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological
incapacity

JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED.