[G.R. No. 119190.

  January 16, 1997]

CHI MING TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI

FACTS

On May 22, 1988, the plaintiff married the defendant as evidenced by their Marriage
Contract. They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22,
1988 until March 15, 1989. But during this period, there was no attempt of sexual
intercourse between them

"Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations and the doctor
found that the plaintiff is still a virgin, while that of her husband’s examination was kept
confidential up to this time. 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 defendant admitted that since their marriage until their separation, there was no
sexual contact between them. But, the reason for  this was HIS wife’s constant
avoidance everytime he wants to have sexual intercourse with her. The defendant
submitted himself to a physical examination to find out whether he is impotent and the
doctor found that the defendant had only a soft erection which is why his penis is not in
its full length but, still is capable of further erection; therefore capable of having sexual
intercourse with a woman.

The trial court rendered judgment declaring as VOID the marriage entered into by the
plaintiff with the defendant which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES
whether or not the appellant is psychologically incapacitated to discharge a basic
marital obligation

RULING

"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 attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn
refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her
spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity." [6]

Evidently, 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."
The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in all respects and the
petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.