Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA GR No.

119190, January 16, 1997 FACTS: Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding the! "roceed to the ho#se of defendant$s mother. There was no se%#al interco#rse between them d#ring their first night and same thing ha""ened #ntil their fo#rth night. &n an effort to ha'e their hone!moon in a "ri'ate "lace the! went to (ag#io b#t Gina$s relati'es went with them. Again there was no se%#al interco#rse since the defendant a'oided b! ta)ing a long wal) d#ring siesta or slee"ing on a roc)ing chair at the li'ing room. Since Ma! 1988 #ntil March 1989 the! sle"t together in the same bed b#t no attem"t of se%#al interco#rse between them. (eca#se of this the! s#bmitted themsel'es for medical e%amination to a #rologist in Chinese General *os"ital in 1989. The res#lt of the "h!sical e%amination of Gina was disclosed while that of the h#sband was )e"t confidential e'en the medicine "rescribed. There were allegations that the reason wh! Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residenc! stat#s here in the co#ntr!. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared 'oid on the gro#nd of "s!chological inca"acit!. +n the other hand the latter does not want to ha'e their marriage ann#lled beca#se he lo'es her 'er! m#ch he has no defect on his "art and is "h!sicall! and "s!chologicall! ca"able and since their relationshi" is still !o#ng the! can still o'ercome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi s#bmitted himself to another "h!sical e%amination and the res#lt was there is not e'idence of im"otenc! and he is ca"able of erection. &SS,-: .hether Chi Ming Tsoi$s ref#sal to ha'e se%#al interco#rse with his wife constit#tes "s!chological inca"acit!. *-L/: The abnormal rel#ctance or #nwillingness to cons#mmate his marriage is strongl! indicati'e of a serio#s "ersonalit! disorder which to the mind of the S#"reme Co#rt clearl! demonstrates an #tter insensiti'it! or inabilit! to gi'e meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 01 of the Famil! Code. &f a s"o#se altho#gh "h!sicall! ca"able b#t sim"l! ref#ses to "erform his or her essential marital obligations and the ref#sal is senseless and constant Catholic marriage trib#nals attrib#te the ca#ses to "s!chological inca"acit! than to st#bborn ref#sal. F#rthermore one of the essential marital obligations #nder the Famil! Code is to "rocreate children th#s constant non2f#lfillment of this obligation will finall! destro! the integrit! and wholeness of the marriage.