FACTS:

Private respondent Gina Loi and petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi were married at the Manila Cathedral on
May 22, 1988. Contrary to Ginas epe!tations that the newlyweds were to en"oy ma#ing love or
having se$al inter!o$rse with ea!h other, the de%endant "$st went to &ed, slept on one side
thereo%, then t$rned his &a!# and went to sleep. 'o se$al inter!o$rse o!!$rred d$ring their %irst
night, se!ond, third and %o$rth night.
(rom May 22, 1988 $ntil Mar!h 1), 1989, they slept together in the same room and on the same
&ed &$t d$ring this period, there was no attempt o% se$al inter!o$rse &etween them. * !ase was
then %iled to de!lare the ann$lment o% the marriage on the gro$nd o% psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity.
Gina alleged that Chi Ming was impotent, a !loset homose$al as he did not show him his penis
+!lini!ally %o$nd to &e only , in!hes and 1 !m. when ere!t-. .e%endant admitted that no se$al
!onta!t was ever made and a!!ording to him everytime he wanted to have se$al inter!o$rse with
his wi%e, she always avoided him and whenever he !aressed her private parts she always removed
his hands.
ISSUE:
/s the re%$sal o% private respondent to have se$al !omm$nion with petitioner a psy!hologi!al
in!apa!ity 01i2
HELD:
/% a spo$se, altho$gh physi!ally !apa&le &$t simply re%$ses to per%orm his or her essential marriage
o&ligations, and the re%$sal is senseless and !onstant, Catholi! marriage tri&$nals attri&$te the
!a$ses to psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity than to st$&&orn re%$sal. 3enseless and protra!ted re%$sal is
e4$ivalent to psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity. Th$s, the prolonged re%$sal o% a spo$se to have se$al
inter!o$rse with his or her spo$se is !onsidered a sign o% psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity.
5vidently, one o% the essential marital o&ligations $nder the (amily Code is 6To pro!reate !hildren
&ased on the $niversal prin!iple that pro!reation o% !hildren thro$gh se$al !ooperation is the
&asi! end o% marriage.7 Constant non8%$l%illment o% this o&ligation will %inally destroy the integrity
or wholeness o% the marriage. /n the !ase at &ar, the senseless and protra!ted re%$sal o% one o%
the parties to %$l%ill the a&ove marital o&ligation is e4$ivalent to psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity.
9hile the law provides that the h$s&and and the wi%e are o&liged to live together, o&serve m$t$al
love, respe!t and %idelity. +*rt. :8, (amily Code-, the san!tion there%or is a!t$ally the
6spontaneo$s, m$t$al a%%e!tion &etween h$s&and and wi%e and not any legal mandate or !o$rt
order. Love is $seless $nless it is shared with another. /ndeed, no man is an island, the !r$elest
a!t o% a partner in marriage is to say 6/ !o$ld not have !ared less.7 This is so &e!a$se an $ngiven
sel% is an $n%$l%illed sel%. The egoist has nothing &$t himsel%. /n the nat$ral order, it is se$al
intima!y whi!h &rings spo$ses wholeness and oneness. 3e$al intima!y is a gi%t and a parti!ipation
in the mystery o% !reation. /t is a %$n!tion whi!h enlivens the hope o% pro!reation and ens$res the
!ontin$ation o% %amily relations.