PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of

Appeals
G.R. No. 119190, 16 January 1997

FACTS:

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the
celebration of their wedding, they proceed to the house of
defendant’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them
during their first night and same thing happened until their
fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private
place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went with them.
Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant
avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a
rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March
1989 they slept together in the same bed but no attempt of
sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examination to an urologist in Chinese
General Hospital in 1989.

The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed,

while that of the husband was kept confidential even the
medicine prescribed. There were allegations that the reason why
Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status
here in the country.

Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want
their marriage declared void on the ground of psychological
incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to have
their marriage annulled because he loves her very much, he has
no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically
capable and since their relationship is still young, they can
still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted
himself to another physical examination and the result was there
is no evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual

intercourse with his wife constitute psychological incapacity.
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

RULING:

The Supreme Court had laid down some of the instances that
proved the existence of psychological incapacity. The incapacity
of the spouse must such that, it prevents him from complying
with the essential marital obligations as state in the Family
Code, like:

(a) To procreate children based on the universal principle that

procreation of children though sexual cooperation is the basic
end of marriage;

(b) To live together under one roof for togetherness spells the
unity in marriage;

(c) To observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, for love,

sexual comfort and loyalty to one another are the basic
postulates of marriage;

(d) To render mutual help and support for assistance in

necessities, both temporal and spiritual, is essential to
sustain the marriage;

(e) To jointly support the family for the spouses are joint
administrators in the partnership;

(f) Not to commit acts which will bring danger, dishonor or

injury to each other or to the family for the safety and
security of the family at all times is a primordial duty of the
spouses;

The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his

marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality
disorder which to the mind of the Supreme 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.

If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to

perform his or her essential marital obligations and the refusal
is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute
the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal.
Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under the
Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-
fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the
integrity and wholeness of the marriage.