Case Digest (G.R. No. 119190) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi, petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi and private respondent Gina Lao-Tsoi were married on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral. Despite cohabiting from that date until their separation on March 15, 1989, they never engaged in sexual intercourse. Their first four nights together at the South Villa in Makati and their so-called honeymoon in Baguio City—where family members accompanied them—likewise lacked any consummation. Private respondent, claiming petitioner’s impotence and psychological aversion, underwent a urological examination revealing her normal status, while petitioner’s confidential treatment was never completed. Later, Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr. found no physical impediment to petitioner’s erection. Private respondent filed for annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 89), which granted the petition. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 42758, affirmed this d Case Digest (G.R. No. 119190) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Marriage and Cohabitation
- May 22, 1988 – Petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi and private respondent Gina Lao-Tsoi married at the Manila Cathedral; no sexual intercourse occurred during the first four nights of marriage.
- Honeymoon in Baguio City with relatives present; parties shared a room and bed from May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989 without consummating the marriage.
- Medical Examinations
- January 20, 1989 – Wife examined by a urologist and found healthy, normal, and still a virgin. Husband’s examination results were kept confidential; medication prescribed but husband did not return.
- Subsequent examination by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr. showed no evidence of impotence; husband capable of soft erection and thus of sexual intercourse.
- Procedural History
- RTC of Quezon City (Branch 89) granted annulment on ground of psychological incapacity and declared the marriage void.
- Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 42758) affirmed the RTC decision on November 29, 1994 and denied reconsideration on February 14, 1995.
- Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging errors in the CA decision.
Issues:
- Whether the CA erred in affirming that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making factual findings.
- Whether the refusal to have sexual communion constitutes psychological incapacity in the absence of proof.
- Whether the mutual refusal to have sex constitutes psychological incapacity of both spouses.
- Whether the CA erred in affirming annulment without fully ensuring absence of collusion between the parties.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)