You are on page 1of 2

Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi January 16, 1997, GR 119190 FC 68 The husband and

d wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support FC 36- A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be VOID even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Senseless refusal of either party to perform sexual intercourse constitutes psychological incapacity

Facts Petitioner and Respondent were married sometime on May 22, 1988. They proceeded to petitioners house but did not engage in sexual intercourse. Despite the respondents efforts, the couple was unable to perform sexual intercourse since they were married until March 1989 (10 mos.) Couple submitted themselves for medical examination. Respondent was found to be healthy and still a virgin. Results of petitioners examination was kept confidential. Petitioner was prescribed drugs but were also undisclosed. He was also requested to return for a follow-up examination but, petitioner never did. Respondent filed an action for annulment at the RTC QC, where she alleges that her husband was impotent and was a closet homosexual and that petitioner only married her to maintain his citizenship here. Petitioner admitted that there was no sexual intimacy between them from the time of the marriage up to the time of their separation and blamed the respondent for the refusal, citing two reasons why the respondent wanted their marriage annulled: (1) afraid to return jewelry of petitioners mother, (2) afraid that petitioner would consummate the marriage. Petitioner contends that the marriage can still remain valid and they could settle their differences. Petitioner submitted himself to another physical examination, the results of which said that he was not impotent and capable of having an erection. The RTC ruled for the herein respondent and declared the marriage void. The CA affirmed the lower courts decision. Hence, this petition


WON either partys refusal to engage in sexual intercourse, constitutes psychological incapacity

Held [Yes] 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 (art. 68) is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage. In this case, the senseless and protracted refusal to fulfill the above mentioned marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Wherefore CA affirmed.