Case #22: Chi Ming Tsoi (Petitioner) vs.
Court of Appeals and Gina Held:
Lao-Tsoi (Respondents)
Facts of the Case:
The marriage of the petitioner and respondent took place on
May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral. The wife commenced the
annulment case with the claims that her husband is impotent and a
closet homosexual because from May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989
he refused to consummate the marriage. According to her, Chi Ming
Tsoi married her to maintain his residency status in the Philippines
as well as to maintain the appearance as a heterosexual. It is due to
this in which she hopes to have the marriage annulled by reason of
psychological incapacity. However, on the other hand, Mr. Tsoi
claims that the reason for the lack of sexual contact is due to his wife
avoiding him. He believes that the reasoning for which she filed the
case is because she is afraid to return the jewelry of his mother and
that her husband, the respondent, would consummate their
marriage. Mr. Tsoi stated that the reason of not having intercourse
is not psychological but perhaps physical on his wife’s part. Since
there was no attempt of sexual intercourse, they submitted
themselves to a medical examination in which her results were
healthy and normal while her husband kept his confidential and was
prescribed medications. It is noted that Mrs. Lao-Tsoi has no
intention to reconcile with Mr. Tsoi while he hopes to maintain their
civil status because he loves her, is physically and psychologically
capable, and believes that the relationship can still be reconciled.
Issue/s:
Is the marriage entered into by Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-
Tsoi void due to psychological incapacity?
The court approved the annulment because Chi Ming Tsoi’s
refusal to have intercourse with his wife constitutes as psychological
incapacity. In order to determine the incapacity of Mr. Tsoi, his penis
was examined by a doctor that concluded that he is capable of
having sexual intercourse with a woman. It was said that since he is
not suffering from physical disability, such abnormal unwillingness
to consummate the marriage is an indicator of a serious
psychological disorder. He claimed that she could have a physical
disorder, but this makes it incumbent upon him to prove such a claim
which he was unable to do. The court was unable to identify whether
it was the petitioner or respondent that refused intercourse, but the
fact remains that there was no coitus. Questioning the one who
refuses to have sex is immaterial because the action of attempting
to declare the marriage void may be done by either party. However,
the fact that the petitioner did not go to court and seek the
declaration of nullity weakens his claim. He never asserted his right
to procreate and the court takes in consideration the manner in
which his wife exposed their relationship to the public thus
strengthening her claims.
Under the Family Code, one of the essential obligations in a
marriage is to “procreate children based on the universal principle
that procreation of children is the basic end of marriage.” In this
case, the continuous refusal to fulfill this marital obligation is the
equivalent of psychological incapacity. The manner in which Mr. Tsoi
was unwilling to perform the sexual act indicates a hopeless
situation that pertains to an incapacity that allows one to be
discharged from the basic marital covenants within the Family Code.