CHI MING TSOI, petitioner vs COURT OF APPEALS, defendant

GR No. 119190. January 16, 1997

Facts:

Sometime on May 22, 1988, Gina and Chi Ming Tsoi were married as evidence by their
marriage contract. From May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15, 1989, there
was no sexual contact between them. Gina made attempts for sexual activity to no avails.
Medical examinations showed that both Gina and Chi Ming Tsoi were capaple of sexual
conduct. Gina was still a virgin at the time of the medical examination. Gina filed a motion
for declaration of nullity and the Trial Court declared their marriage as void. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi subsequently filed a
motion to the Supreme Court citing that it was she and not he that had the problem
regarding sexual intimacy.

Issue:

Whether or not non-desire of sexual consumation be an indicator of psychological

incapacity?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found the petition to be bereft of merit. Since the action to declare
the marriage void may be filed by either party, the question of who refuses to have sex
with the other becomes immaterial. If a spouse, although physically capable but simply
refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless
and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attributethe causes to psychological incapacity
than to stubborn refusal. Aligned with this is the essential marital obligation, “the
procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through
sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage.” Constant non-fulfillment of this
obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage.

After ten months of marriage, the reluctance to perform the sexual act was indicative of a
hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological
incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants within the contemplation of the
Family Code.

https://www.studocu.com/en/document/university-of-santo-tomas/intermediate-accounting-
2/other/chi-ming-tsoi-case-digest-chi-ming-tsoi/5439782/view
Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA and Gina Lao
– Tsoi (CASE DIGEST)
Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA and Gina Lao-Tsoi (CASE DIGEST)

GR No. 119190

16 January 1997

TOPIC: Persons, Persons and Family Relations, Family Code, Psychological

Incapacity, Legal Medicine

FACTS:

On 22 May 1988, plaintiff and the defendant got married. Although they slept in the
same bed since May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989, no sexual intercourse took place.
Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations. She was found
healthy, normal and still a virgin. Her husband’s examination was kept confidential.

The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual, and that the
defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status
here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man. The
plaintiff is not willing to reconcile with her husband.

The defendant claims that should the marriage be annulled, it is his wife’s fault. He
claims no defect on his part, as he was found not to be impotent, and any differences
between the two of them can still be reconciled. He admitted that they have not had
intercourse since their marriage until their separation because his wife avoided him. He
added that his wife filed this case against him because she is afraid that she will be
forced to return the pieces of jewellery of his mother, and, that the defendant, will
consummate their marriage.

The trial court declared the marriage void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court’s decision.

Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:
W/N petitioner is psychologically incapacitated?

RULING:

Yes. Senseless and protracted refusal to consummate the marriage is equivalent to

psychological incapacity.

Appellant admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten
months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical
disability. Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is
strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Court
clearly demonstrates an ‘utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance
to the marriage’ within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.

Petitioner further contends that respondent court erred in holding that the alleged
refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have sex with each other
constitutes psychological incapacity of both. However, neither the trial court nor the
respondent court made a finding on who between petitioner and private respondent
refuses to have sexual contact with the other. But the fact remains that there has never
been coitus between them. At any rate, since the action to declare the marriage void
may be filed by either party, the question of who refuses to have sex with the other
becomes immaterial.

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 fulfil the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological
incapacity.

The petition is DENIED.