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.