Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COURT OF
APPEALS, GINA LAO-TSOI
FACTS:
Ching married Gina on May 22, 1988 at the
Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila as
evidenced by their marriage contract. After the
celebration they had a reception and then
proceeded to the house of the Ching Ming
Tsois mother. There they slept together on the
same bed in the same room for the first night
of their married life. Ginas version: that
contrary to her expectations that as newlyweds
they were supposed to enjoy making love that
night of their marriage, or having sexual
intercourse, with each other, Ching however
just went to bed, slept on one side and then
turned his back and went to sleep. There was
no sexual intercourse between them that night.
The same thing happened on the second, third
and fourth nights. In an effort to have their
honey moon in a private place where they can
enjoy together during their first week as
husband and wife they went to Baguio City. But
they did so together with Chings mother, uncle
and nephew as they were all invited by her
husband. There was no sexual intercourse
between them for four days in Baguio since
Ching
avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta
time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair
located at the living room. They slept together
in the same room and on the same bed since
May 22, 1988 (day of their marriage) until
March 15, 1989 (ten months). But during this
period there was no attempt of sexual
intercourse between them. Gina claims that
she did not even see her husbands private
parts nor did he see hers. Because of this, they
submitted themselves for medical
examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag. Results
were that Gina is healthy, normal and still a
virgin while Chings examination was kept
confidential up to this time. The Gina claims
that her husband is impotent, a closet
homosexual as he did not show his penis. She
said she had observed him using an eyebrow
pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of
his mother. She also said her husband only
married her to acquire or maintain his
residency status here in the country and to
TY VS. CA
Ruling:
There can be no action for damages merely
because of a breach of marital obligation.
Supreme Court also viewed that no damages
should be awarded in the present case, but for
another reason. Petitioner wants her marriage
to private respondent held valid and subsisting.
She is suing to maintain her status as
legitimate wife. In the same breath, she asks
for damages from her husband for filing a
baseless complaint for annulment of their
marriage which caused her mental anguish,
anxiety, besmirched reputation, social
humiliation and alienation from her parents.