Republic of the Philippines

Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 30
Quezon City

GINA LAO-TSOI, Civil Case No. _____

petitioner

-versus- For: Declaration of Absolute

Nullity of Marriage
CHI MING TSOI,
respondent

x----------------------------x

ANSWER

C OMES NOW, respondent, by the undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits his
answer to the petition in the above-titled case, and for this purpose states:

1. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 1 of the petition insofar as the
personal circumstances of the petitioner is concerned;

2. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 2 of the petition insofar as his
personal circumstances is concerned;

3. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 3 with regard to the date of their
marriage, place where it was celebrated and the name of the solemnizing officer;

4. That the respondent admits the 1st sentence of paragraph 4 with regard to the place where
they met but denies the allegation in the 2nd sentence. The respondent did not live in
Beijing since he was 6 years of age. He was born to a Filipino mother and a Chinese
father, in Manila, Philippines. He has been residing in the Philippines and visits his father
in Beijing once in a while (Birth Certificate of the Respondent marked as Annex E
and Birth Certificate of Respondent’s Mother marked as Annex F herein attached);

5. That the respondent admits the 1st sentence of paragraph 5 insofar as how he courted the
petitioner is concerned but denies the subsequent claims. The petitioner and her family
neither initially declined the proposal nor was the respondent’s mother insistent on them
being married immediately. The protracted engagement was upon the agreement of the

Page | 1
 spouses and their parents had nothing to do with such. (Affidavit of Respondent’s
Mother marked as Annex G herein attached);

6. That the respondent denies the allegation in paragraph 6. The petitioner never seduced
him prior to their marriage;

7. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 7 of the petition insofar as where
they stayed after the wedding reception. But denies the allegation that the petitioner was
disappointed. They mutually agreed that they will stay at the respondent’s mother’s
house;

8. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 8 of the petition with regard to not
having sexual intercourse with the petitioner but maintains that it is not only him who
should be blamed. The petitioner admits that since their marriage, there was no sexual
intercourse between them. Petitioner, however, fails to mention that every time it was the
respondent who wanted to have a sexual intercourse, she always avoided him and
whenever he tried to caress her private parts, she always removed his hands;

9. That the respondent admits the first four sentences of paragraph 9 but denies the rest
thereof. During their vacation in Baguio, it was agreed upon by the parties that the entire
duration of the vacation will be spent for relaxation by going to the different tourist spots
found in the city. Evidence will prove that it was even the petitioner who was eager to
spend their days out of the hotel and who seemed to be happier with their itinerary during
their break. (Affidavit of the Respondent marked as Annex H and Video Tape of the
Baguio vacation marked as Annex I herein attached);

10. That the respondent denies the allegation stated in paragraph 10. There were only three
instances when the petitioner tried to initiate sexual intercourse with the respondent.
Unfortunately, those were the times when the petitioner was really tired. They never had
plans on having children because the petitioner, actually, never opened that topic to him.
He never scowled the petitioner;

11. That the respondent admits the allegation stated in paragraph 11 with regard to the claim
that the petitioner has not seen the petitioner’s private parts during their entire marriage;

Page | 2
12. That the respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 12. No confession was made to
the respondent’s mother and she never berated the petitioner;

13. That the respondent admits the allegation stated in paragraph 13 with regard to the
petitioner’s averment insofar as to their submission of themselves for medical
examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalaglag and as to the results of the examination;

14. That the respondent admits the allegation stated in paragraph 14 with regard to the claim
that the respondent’s medical examination was kept confidential but denies petitioner’s
assertion that he never returned to the doctor when he was told to do so. Unknown to the
petitioner, respondent has been a patient of Dr. Cruz, a noted cardiologist for
hypertension. Dr. Cruz referred respondent To Dr. Alteza for the erectile dysfunction
problem that he was experiencing;

15. That the respondent denies the allegation stated in paragraph 15. The respondent’s
mother never interfered with the marital relationship of the petitioner and respondent.
Neither did she treat her harshly nor keep on blaming her for her inability to conceive.
Such accusations were deliberately fabricated by the petitioner purposely to support the
arguments to the main issue in order for the petition to be instantly granted;

16. That the respondent denies the allegation stated in paragraph 16. The respondent never
became unfaithful to the petitioner. He loves her so much that it is too impossible for him
to hurt her feelings. Petitioner’s accusation that he often leaves in the middle of the night
not telling her where he was going and he would arrive at dawn with a smell of a
woman’s perfume and alcohol were all fabricated. The petitioner cannot even present any
evidence to prove the authenticity of such claims. (Respondent’s recent love letters
marked as Annex J and the petitioner’s response to the letters marked as Annex K
herein attached);

17. That the respondent denies the allegation stated in paragraph 17. The petitioner left the
respondent only a year after a marriage without sexual intercourse. The respondent
maintains that the fault lies with Gina since the relationship is still very young and if
there is any difference between the two of them, it can still be reconciled. However, Gina
closed herself to that possibility;

Page | 3
18. That the respondent admits the allegation stated in paragraph 18 insofar as to the
petitioner’s claim that she left the respondent on March 16, 1989 but denies the assertion
that he was psychologically incapacitated sufficient to annul their marriage pursuant to
Article 36 of the New Family Code of the Philippines.

The respondent reiterates and re-pleads the foregoing as they may be relevant
thereto;

19. That a dowry in forms of money and jewelleries were conditionally given to the
petitioner. It was agreed by latter and the respondent’s mother that the entire dowry will
be given to the petitioner provided that her marriage to her son will last for at least 8
months. However, in the event of separation, such shall not be the fault of the petitioner.
Otherwise, the entire dowry will be taken back by the mother (Written agreement of the
Parties Marked as Annex L herein attached);

20. That the respondent’s mother went on numerous trips abroad after their marriage
rendering her impossible to interfere with the spouses’ affairs. The former was so busy
with their family businesses and can’t even find time to visit them. (Passport Marked as
Annex M herein attached);

21. That the respondent submitted himself to physical examinations and even returned for
several times for follow up check-ups. His penis was examined by Dr. Sergio Alteza,
Jr., a foremost Manila urologist for the purpose of finding out whether he is
impotent or not. The result showed that he is not impotent and he is capable of
erection. (Affidavit of Dr. Alteza marked as Annex N herein attached);

22. That unknown to the petitioner, Chi Ming Tsoi has been a patient of Dr. Cruz, a noted
cardiologist for hypertension. Dr. Cruz referred respondent To Dr. Alteza for the erectile
dysfunction problem that he was experiencing. According to him, the respondent’s
current dilemma was caused by hypertension but is very much treatable. Hence, Dr. Cruz
prescribed the appropriate medication. But doctors have been monitoring respondent’s
positive progress to the medication (Medical Certificate marked as Annex O and
Prescrition marked as Annex P herein attached);

23. That for this reason, respondent sometimes refused petitioner’s sexual advances. Some of
the side effects brought about by his medication were irritability, insomnia, tiredness
(Affidavit of Dr. Cruz marked as Annex Q herein attached);

Page | 4
24. That the doctor said that he asked the respondent to masturbate to find out whether or not
he has an erection and he found out that from the original size of 2 inches, the penis of
the defendant lengthened by 1 inches and 1 centimetre. The doctor said that the
respondent only has soft erection which is why his penis is not in its full length. But, still
is capable of further erection, and despite his soft erection, the defendant is capable of
having sexual intercourse with a woman and impregnating a female;

25. That the respondent noticed that the petitioner became spendthrift after their marriage.
The latter often requests the former for extra money, and if these requests are not granted,
she usually walks away or accuses him of having extra marital affairs with other women;

26. That the respondent realizes that while it may be true that there were some instances
when the petitioner seemed to initiate a sexual intercourse, these were the times when he
was so exhausted to entertain her. The respondent readmits that since his marriage to
Gina, there was no sexual contact between them. But Gina failed to mention in the
petition that she also has a fault thereof. Respondent maintains that every time it was him
who wanted to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she always avoided him and
whenever he caresses her private parts, she always removed his hands. Putting all the
blame to the respondent will benefit her in a way mention in the next preceding
paragraphs;

27. That respondent remembers the conditional dowry given by his mother to the respondent.
He now fathoms that his spouse probably married him just for money. The dowry
agreement stated that in order for her to get the entire dowry, their marriage should at
least last for 8 months. In the event of separation, the respondent should have no fault
thereof. Hence, petitioner files a petition for the nullity of their marriage since their
marriage is already on its 10th month and she could now freely get the entire dowry;

28. Assuming that the marriage was entered because of the dowry, respondent can
now clearly connect one event to the other. Since it was stipulated that in order
for the petitioner to get the entire dowry, she made it appear that the respondent
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations. The
purpose is clear, SHE WANTS THE ENTIRE DOWRY. All the allegations
herein were deliberately fabricated purposely to attain what she wants.
Unfortunately, the respondent believes that any of the alibis used by the
petitioner is not sufficient enough to render their marriage void ab initio;

Page | 5
29. Psychological incapacity as a “broad range of mental and behavioural conduct on the part
of one spouse indicative of how he or she regards the marital union, his or her personal
relationship with the other spouse, as well as his or her conduct in the long haul for the
attainment of the principal objectives of marriage. If said conduct, observed and
considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it defeats the very
objectives of marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the spouses to their
individual fates.” In the case at bar, the petitioner left the respondent only a year after a
marriage without sexual intercourse. The respondent maintains that the fault lies with
Gina since the relationship is still very young and if there is any difference between the
two of them, it can still be reconciled. However, Gina closed herself to that possibility;

30. Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental incapacity and that there is
hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders 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.”;

31. The psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability." In the present case, there is no clear showing to us that
the psychological defect spoken of is incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a
"difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital
obligations. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities"
in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties
failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they
must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical)
illness;

32. The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not
get along with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem;
neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Alteza
showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological
incapacity;

33. Also, in one case, the court reiterated that the root cause of the psychological
incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the
Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical.

Page | 6
Although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must
convince the court that the parties, or one of them, were mentally or physically ill to such
an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. In the present case, the
respondent readmits that since his marriage to Gina, there was no sexual contact between
them. But, the reason for this was that every time he wants to have sexual intercourse
with his wife, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, she
always removed his hands. Whenever it would be Gina who is on the ‘mood’ for a sexual
intercourse, these are during times when the respondent is so tired that he cannot grant
what his spouse wants. Their case constitutes only difficulty in reconciling their time but
not psychological incapacity.

Page | 7
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of

the Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgement be rendered
DISMISSING the instant petition for lack of merit.
Quezon City, Philippines, January 15, 1990.

Atty. Juana M. Dela Cruz

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Until December 31, 1990
Roll No. 38738, June 6, 1988
IBP O.R. No. 603496, June 9, 1990, Baguio City
PTR No. 1198478, June 9, 1990, Baguio City

Page | 8
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF QUEZON ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I, CHI MING TSOI, Filipino, of legal age, married to the petitioner and a resident of
Malate, Manila, after having been duly sworn on accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the respondent in the above-titled case;
2. That I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer;
3. That I have read the contents thereof;
4. That all the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge;
5. That I hereby certify that I have not commenced an action involving similar issues
before the Supreme Court or any of its division; before the Court of Appeals or any
divisions thereof; before the Regional Trial Courts, or any other agency of the
government. That if I should learn about the pendency of similar action, I shall inform
the Supreme Court within five days from the knowledge thereof.
`
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this 8th day of January 1990 at
Cubao, Quezon City.

Chi Ming Tsoi

RESPONDENT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 8th day of January 1990 at Cubao, Quezon
City, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 1234-56 issued at Malate, Manila on June
3, 1989.

Atty. Juan M. Dela Cruz

Notary Public
Until December 31, 1990
Roll No. 34338, June 6, 1988

Page | 9
 IBP O.R. No. 601496, June 9, 1990, Baguio City
PTR No. 1123478, June 9, 1990, Baguio City

Doc. No. 123

Page No. 456
Book No. XV
Series of 1990

Page | 10