Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA and Gina Lao- Tsoi

G.R. No. 119190

January 16, 1997

Facts: Chi Ming Choi married Gina Lao in May 22, 1988. After the celebration of their marriage, they
proceed to the husband’s mother’s house where they slept on the same bed but didn’t consummate their
marriage. It continuously happened until March 15, 1989 and within the 10 months of being married, the
husband never attempted to have sexual intercourse to her wife.

From then, they decided to have them checked and according to result, the wife is normal, healthy and
still a virgin. However, the result for her husband’s checkup remained confidential including the
prescription medicine given by the doctor.

The wife filed an annulment cases in the ground of psychological incapacity. The wife believes that her
husband is impotent and closet homosexual as he did not show his private parts and she observed that
her husband is using the eye brow pencil of his mother. The reason he married her was to maintain his
Philippine residency and social status.

On the other hand, the husband believes that if their marriage be annulled, the fault lies with his wife. He
admitted that no sexual intercourse happened between his wife during the 10 months of marriage before
separation. He claims every time he wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she always avoided
him. His wife filed a case against him was due to the unreturned jewelry of his wife from his mother and
that he will consummate the marriage.

The husband insisted that their marriage must still be valid because their relationship was still too young
and there is still a chance to overcome their differences.

The husband undergo under physical examination to check the possibility of impotency. There we no
evidence of impotency and husband was capable of having sexual intercourse with a woman.

The court nullified their marriage in the grounds of psychological incapacity and Court of Appeals
affirmed the court’s decision.

Issue: Is the marriage could be annulled in the grounds of psychological incapacity?

Held: Yes, the apparent reluctance and stubbornness of the husband to have sexual intercourse
without any physical disability indicates a very serious problem which the Court clearly demonstrates as
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage within the meaning of
Article 36 of the Family Code. Catholic marriage tribunals attributes this senseless and constant refusal as
psychological incapacity. To procreate is one of the essential marital obligation under the Family code,
constant non-fulfillment of this obligation destroys the integrity and wholeness of marriage.