CASE NAME CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-

TSOI, respondents.
TOPIC Family Code – Psychological Incapacity
CASE DATE G.R. NO. 119190 JANUARY 16, 1997
NO.
PONENTE TORRES, JR.
CASE Gina Lao (the respondent) filed for annulment from her then husband of 10
SUMMARY months, Chi Ming Tsoi (petitioner) on the grounds of PYSCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY (precipitated by the latter’s refusal to consummate their
marriage after 10 months of cohabitation, having been married from May
22, 1988 to March 15, 1989 – the date of their separation).

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 89 decreed the annulment
of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity while the Court
of Appeals AFFIRMED the RTC’s decision on November 29, 1994 and
likewise denied the petitioner’s motion of reconsideration in a resolution
dated February 14, 1995.

The Court AFFIRMED the decision of the assailed decision of the CA,
arguing that:

“If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or
her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant,
Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and stubborn refusal is
equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a
spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign
of psychological incapacity.”

DOCTRINE 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.”
Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity
or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and
protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital
obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

RELEVANT FACTS

The petitioner and the respondent married on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral in
Intramuros Manila.
The parties spent their wedding night at the house of the petitioner’s mother, during which
they slept together on the same bed for the first night of their married life. However, the
petitioner MADE NO ATTEMPT to consummate their marriage, contrary to the expectation
of the respondent.

The parties spent 4 days in Baguio City for their honeymoon with Lao’s mother, Tsoi’s
mother, an uncle, and Tsoi’s nephew. NO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE as the petitioner avoided
the respondent by:
o Taking long walks during siesta time; or,
o Sleeping on a rocking chair located at the leaving room.
o This lack of consummation persisted from May 22, 1988 until the parties
separated on March 15, 1989. They also did not see each other’s private parts.

They submitted themselves for medical examinations conducted by Dr. Eufemio

Macalalag, a urologist at the Chinese General Hospital on January 20, 1989, the results of
which are:
o GINA LAO
▪ Healthy
▪ Normal
▪ Still a Virgin
o CHI MING TSOI
▪ Confidential BUT medications were prescribed
▪ Asked to return but never did

The arguments presented by both parties are as follows:

o GINA LAO:
▪ The defendant (petitioner) is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not
show his penis.
▪ She had observed the defendant using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes
the cleansing cream of his mother.
▪ The defendant married her for:
1) Her Filipino citizenship – to acquire or maintain his residency status in
the country; and,
2) To maintain the appearance of a normal man.
o CHI MING TSOI:
▪ Their marriage should not be allowed due to the following:
1) He loves his wife very much;
2) He has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically
capable; and,
 3) Since the relationship is still very young, if there is any differences
between the two of them, it can still be reconciled
4) If either of them has some incapabilities, there is no certainty that it will
not be cured by intervention of technology or science.

▪ Why his wife filed for annulment:

1) 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 her marriage.

On W/N the petitioner is impotent: Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr. submitted in his Doctor’s Medical
Report that there is no evidence of impotency, and that petitioner is capable of an erection:
o From 2 inches or 5 centimeters to 3 inches and 1 centimeter or 7.9 centimeters.
This is only a soft erection and the penis is still not in its full length.
o The petitioner is CAPABLE OF having sexual intercourse with a woman.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITIONER vs. CA: (The petition was found to be bereft of
merit)

1) CA erred in affirming the conclusions of the lower court that there was no sexual
intercourse between the parties without making any findings of fact.
2) CA erred in holding that the refusal of private respondent to have sexual
communion with petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof
thereof is totally absent.
3) CA erred in holding that the alleged refusal of both petitioner and the private
respondent to have sex with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of
both.
4) CA erred in affirming the annulment of marriage between the parties decreed by
the lower court without fully satisfying itself that there was no collusion between
them.

RATIO DECIDENDI

ISSUE W/N Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to consummate his marriage entail psychological
incapacity and therefore serves as ground for annulment of marriage?

YES = Petitioner’s refusal to consummate his marriage after 10 months of cohabitation with his
wife DOES ENTAIL psychological incapacity and is a good enough ground for the marriage to
be considered NULL AND VOID.
 1) There is nothing in the record to show that the petitioner tried to find out what the
problem with his wife could be (although he alleged that the respondent is the one who
refused to consummate their marriage due to physical disorder). What the petitioner
presented as evidence is his doctor’s Medical Report that there is no evidence of his
impotency and he is capable of an erection. Since it is petitioner’s claim that the reason
is not psychological but perhaps physical disorder on the part of the private respondent,
it became incumbent upon him to prove such a claim.

“If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to

perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the
refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals
attribute the causes to PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY than to
stubborn refusal. Senseless and stubborn refusal is equivalent to
psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to
have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of
psychological incapacity.”

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.” Constant non-fulfillment of this
obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at
bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above
marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

RULING

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated
November 29, 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects and the petition is hereby DENIED for lack
of merit. SO ORDERED.