You are on page 1of 2


TSOI vs. CA,


G.R. No. 119190
January 16, 1997

Torres Jr., J.:


Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi married each other on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros, Manila. Right after the reception, the couple went to the house of the defendant’s mother
for their honeymoon. However, far from Gina’s impression of honeymoon that is filled with making love
and having sex, they never had any sexual intercourse on their first nights as husband and wife.
Although they slept in one room and one bed, they never had any sex. And it continued on the second,
third, fourth and so on nights.

So, in order to have their intimate time alone together, the couple went to Baguio City. However, the
husband invited their family members to go with them. During their four nights of stay in Baguio City,
nothing special happened again. Sometimes they slept on separate rooms.

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. She claimed that she
did not even see her husband’s private parts nor did he see hers. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag, a urologist at the Chinese General
Hospital, on January 20, 1989. The result of the examination showed that the wife is healthy and still a
virgin while the husband’s result was kept confidential.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant is impotent; a closet homosexual as he did not show his penis.
She said, that she had observed the defendant using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the cleansing
cream of his mother. And according to her, 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

On the other hand, it is the claim of the defendant that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason of
psychological incapacity, the fault lies with his wife.

But he said that he does not want his marriage with his wife annulled for several reasons to wit; (1) that
he loves her very much; (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically
capable; and, (3) since the relationship is still very young and if there is any differences between the two
of them, it can still be reconciled and that, according to him, if either one of them has some incapability,
there is no certainty that this will not be cured. He further claimed that if there is any defect, it can be
cured by the intervention of medical technology or science.
The defendant admitted that since their marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15,
1989, there was no sexual contact between them. But, the reason for this, according to the defendant,
was that every time he wanted to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she always avoided him and
whenever he caresses her private parts, she always removed his hands. The defendant claims, that he
forced his wife to have sex with him only once but he did not continue because she was shaking and she
did not like it. So he stopped.

There are two (2) reasons, according to the defendant why the plaintiff filed this case against him, and
these are: (1) that she is afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces of jewelry of his mother, and,
(2) that her husband, the defendant, will consummate their marriage.

The wife filed an annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity to her husband.


Whether or not the refusal of one spouse to provide sex to the other party is a ground for
voiding the marriage.


Yes. The refusal of the private respondent to have sexual communion with the petitioner is a
psychological incapacity. Thus, this further proves that their marriage should be void.

This case digest is related to article 5 of the Family Code of the Philippines.