Psychological incapacity is one of the grounds for nullity or annulment of marriage under Article 36 of

the Family Code. In determining psychological incapacity, the Supreme Court presented the
characteristics of psychological incapacity through its decisions on annulment cases.

In the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, the Supreme Court held that the refusal of the husband to have sexual
intercourse with the wife for the purpose of procreating children, an essential marital obligation, from
the time of their marriage up to their separation ten months later constitute psychological incapacity.

Furthermore, in the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, the Supreme Court cited the case of Tompkins v.
Tompkins, which ruled against the husband who did not consummate the marriage. The Supreme Court
also cited the case of Cuaderno v. Cuaderno which stated that the act of living together of husband and
wife, observing mutual love, respect and fidelity should be due to "spontaneous, mutual affection
between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order".

The Supreme Court also referred to the case of Santos v. CA, describing the unwillingness to
consummate the marriage as 'utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage', which is within the definition of psychological incapacity. Also, in the case of Santos v. CA, the
Supreme Court has enumerated the following characteristics of psychological incapacity: (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

The aforementioned characteristics of psychological incapacity and previous rulings of the Supreme
Court evidently proved that psychological incapacity is existing in the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA.