CHI MING TSOI, petitioner vs

COURT OF APPEALS and GINA

LAO-TSOI, respondents
G.R. No. 119190. January 16,
1997
FACTS:
! On May 22, 1988, Gina and Chi
Ming Tsoi had their marriage at
the Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros Manila. The first night
of their married life was spent in
the house of Gina’s mother.
Both of them slept in the same
room and in one bed, but there was
no sexual intercourse that
occurred between them. Similar
events happened until the fourth
night. From the day of their
marriage until the day of their
separation, no intercourse has
taken place between them. For
this, they submitted themselves for
medical examinations to Dr.
Eufemio Macalalag, who is a
urologist in the Chinese General
Hospital. The results of Gina’s
tests were disclosed, but the
petitioner’s results and
medications were kept
confidential. Subsequently, Gina
filed a motion
to the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City to nullify their
marriage and the Trial Court
granted
the motion and stated their
marriage void. Chi Ming Tsoi, the
petitioner, then filed a motion to
the Supreme Court appealing
that it is Gina, respondent, who
had a problem on sexual
intimacy."
ISSUE:
Is refusal for sexual intercourse a
connotation of psychological
incapacity?"
RULING:
Yes, because the prolonged refusal
to have sexual intercourse with his
or her spouse is
an indicator of psychological
incapacity. Chi Ming Tsoi
admitted that he is unwilling to
perform
sexual intercourse with his wife,
whom he love and who has not
resisted to his supposed
approaches. This is an indicator
of a personality disorder which
is related to psychological
disorder. The Supreme Court
denied the petition because of
the lack of pieces of evidence.
Moreover, the petitioner stated
several erroneous arguments.
One, he said that there is no
concrete evidence as to who,
between them, is suffering from
psychological incapacity.
Second, he attempted to have sex
with the respondent, but it is she
who refused. He added
that a possible reason for her
refusal may not connote a
psychological incapacity, but a
physical disorder. The Supreme
Court disagreed with the
arguments presented by the
petitioner, thus declaring the
sustained judgment of the
respondent appellate court. The
Court
disagreed with the first argument
because the refusal to have sexual
intercourse is an indicator
of psychological incapacity. For
the second argument, the Court
argued that if that was the
case, then the petitioner should
have discussed with the respondent
what is bothering her, but
he never did. In addition,
considering that the petitioner
did not go to court before the
respondent, it weakens the
arguments that he presented.
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner vs
COURT OF APPEALS and GINA
LAO-TSOI, respondents
G.R. No. 119190. January 16,
1997
FACTS:
! On May 22, 1988, Gina and Chi
Ming Tsoi had their marriage at
the Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros Manila. The first night
of their married life was spent in
the house of Gina’s mother.
Both of them slept in the same
room and in one bed, but there was
no sexual intercourse that
occurred between them. Similar
events happened until the fourth
night. From the day of their
marriage until the day of their
separation, no intercourse has
taken place between them. For
this, they submitted themselves for
medical examinations to Dr.
Eufemio Macalalag, who is a
urologist in the Chinese General
Hospital. The results of Gina’s
tests were disclosed, but the
petitioner’s results and
medications were kept
confidential. Subsequently, Gina
filed a motion
to the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City to nullify their
marriage and the Trial Court
granted
the motion and stated their
marriage void. Chi Ming Tsoi, the
petitioner, then filed a motion to
the Supreme Court appealing
that it is Gina, respondent, who
had a problem on sexual
intimacy."
ISSUE:
Is refusal for sexual intercourse a
connotation of psychological
incapacity?"
RULING:
Yes, because the prolonged refusal
to have sexual intercourse with his
or her spouse is
an indicator of psychological
incapacity. Chi Ming Tsoi
admitted that he is unwilling to
perform
sexual intercourse with his wife,
whom he love and who has not
resisted to his supposed
approaches. This is an indicator
of a personality disorder which
is related to psychological
disorder. The Supreme Court
denied the petition because of
the lack of pieces of evidence.
Moreover, the petitioner stated
several erroneous arguments.
One, he said that there is no
concrete evidence as to who,
between them, is suffering from
psychological incapacity.
Second, he attempted to have sex
with the respondent, but it is she
who refused. He added
that a possible reason for her
refusal may not connote a
psychological incapacity, but a
physical disorder. The Supreme
Court disagreed with the
arguments presented by the
petitioner, thus declaring the
sustained judgment of the
respondent appellate court. The
Court
disagreed with the first argument
because the refusal to have sexual
intercourse is an indicator
of psychological incapacity. For
the second argument, the Court
argued that if that was the
case, then the petitioner should
have discussed with the respondent
what is bothering her, but
he never did. In addition,
considering that the petitioner
did not go to court before the
respondent, it weakens the
arguments that he presented.
Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA and Gina Lao-Tsoi (CASE DIGEST)
GR No. 119190

16 January 1997

TOPIC: Persons, Persons and Family Relations, Family Code,

Psychological Incapacity, Legal Medicine

FACTS:

On 22 May 1988, plaintiff and the defendant got married. Although they
slept in the same bed since May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989, no sexual
intercourse took place. Because of this, they submitted themselves for
medical examinations. She was found healthy, normal and still a virgin.
Her husband’s examination was kept confidential.

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 plaintiff is not willing to
reconcile with her husband.

The defendant claims that should the marriage be annulled, it is his

wife’s fault. He claims no defect on his part, as he was found not to be
impotent, and any differences between the two of them can still be
reconciled. He admitted that they have not had intercourse since their
marriage until their separation because his wife avoided him. He added
that his wife filed this case against him because she is afraid that she will
be forced to return the pieces of jewellery of his mother, and, that the
defendant, will consummate their marriage.

The trial court declared the marriage void. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:

W/N petitioner is psychologically incapacitated?

RULING:

Yes. Senseless and protracted refusal to consummate the marriage is

equivalent to psychological incapacity.

Appellant admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife
after almost ten months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not
suffering from any physical disability. Such abnormal reluctance or
unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a
serious personality disorder which to the mind of the 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.

Petitioner further contends that respondent court erred in holding that

the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to
have sex with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both.
However, neither the trial court nor the respondent court made a finding
on who between petitioner and private respondent refuses to have
sexual contact with the other. But the fact remains that there has never
been coitus between them. At any rate, since the action to declare the
marriage void may be filed by either party,  the question of who refuses
to have sex with the other becomes immaterial.

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.” In the
case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to
fulfil the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological
incapacity.

The petition is DENIED.