FACTS: Chi MinTsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi were married for 10 months. But still their marriage was not
consummated because the husband refuses to have sexual intercourse with his spouse. Even if she already
made efforts, they still failed to consummate their marriage by performing coitus. The spouses decided to
undergo a medical check up to see if there was something wrong with them. The Doctor found out that
there was nothing wrong with their organs and that the man was not impotent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is
psychological incapacity, which may be a ground for annulment, in the light of Article 36 of the Family
Code.

HELD: The issue of whether or not the appellant is psychologically incapacitated to discharge a basic
marital obligation was resolved upon a review of both the documentary and testimonial evidence on
record. 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 this 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 (See
Santos vs. Court of Appeals)

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

There are two companion cases to be discussed, both dealing with annulment albeit with different

outcomes. Considering the nature of the subject matter, one gets to wonder again how these cases
reached the Supreme Court, to be part of the public record for all to see. 

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA  

In Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA, et al.(G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997), “a distraught wife” filed for annulment
of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity “against her uncaring husband.” The Regional Trial
Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor. 

The parties were married in the Manila Cathedral. From the results of the case, the venue of a marriage,
no matter how grand, does not necessarily augur well for a long union. After the reception, they
proceeded to the house of the husband’s mother. She alleged that during their first night, “the
defendant just went to bed, slept on one side thereof, then turned his back and went to sleep. There

was no sexual intercourse between them during the first night. The same thing happened on the
second, third and fourth nights.” 

Even during their honeymoon in Baguio, “there was no sexual intercourse between them, since the
defendant avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair
located at the living room. They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22,
1988 until March 15, 1989. But during this period, there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between
eve n see her husband's private parts nor did he see hers.” 
them. *S+he claims, that she did not: even

This even led to

to them to get medical examinations from a urologist. She was found to “healthy, normal
and still a virgin, while that of her husband's examination was kept confidential up to this time. While no

medicine was prescribed for her, the doctor prescribed medications for her husband which was also
kept confidential. No treatment was given to her. For her husband, he was asked by the doctor to return

but he never did.” 

In her suit, the wife claims “that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not show
not  show his
penis. She said, that she had observed the defendant using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the
cleansing cream of his mother. And that, according to her, 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.” 

Defendant pointed to his wife as the one psychologically incapacitated. But he opposed the annulment
since he still loves her, that he is capable and that they could still reconcile. Any defect can still be cured.

He did admit that there has been no sexual contact between them but this was because of her refusal.
He alleges that the case was filed because “she is afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces of
 jewelry of his mother and because of
o f her fear of consummation. This certainly is a novel defense which
was presented by the defendant. 

However, a physical examination to determine whether he is impotent revealed the following: (i) “from
the original size of two (2) inches, or five (5) centimeters, the penis of the defendant lengthened by one
(1) inch and one centimeter and (ii) “defendant had only a soft erection which is why his penis is not in
its full length xxx, still is capable of further erection, in that with his soft erection, the defendant is

capable of having sexual intercourse with a woman.” 

Defendant went to the Supreme Court. He contended that his spouse had the “burden of proving the
allegations in her complaint.” And that since there is no independent evidence of the “alleged non-
non-
coitus between the parties,” there was no other basis other than his admission for the court’s
conclusions. The Court held that the judgment made was not merely based on the pleadings. When the
plaintiff testified under oath and was subjected to cross-examination, she presented evidence in the
form of testimony. It was now incumbent on the defendant to present his side. He admitted that they
m arriage until their separation. 
did not have intercourse since their marriage

In affirming the decision

decision of the Court of Appeals, the court quoted with favor the former’s findings, to

wit: 

“The judgment of the trial court which was affirmed by this Court is not based on a stipulation of facts.
The issue of whether or not the appellant is psychologically incapacitated to discharge a basic marital
obligation was resolved upon a review of both the documentary and testimonial evidence on record.
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 this 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 (See
Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995). 

Defendant further argued that “alleged refusal of both 

both  the petitioner and the private respondent to
have sex with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both” 
both”  and that there may be other
reasons such as “i.e., physical disorders, such as aches, pains or other discomforts” on why the marriage
was not consummated. The trial court did not make a finding on who refused contact. But the fact
remains that here has been no coitus. And since an annulment can be filed by either party, even the
one “psychologically incapacitated, the question of who refuses
refuses to have sex with the other becomes
immaterial.” 

There is nothing on record to show whether defendant “tried to find out or discover what the problem
with his wife could be.” All he showed was supposed medical proof there is “no evidence of his
impotency
impotency and he is capable of erection.” 
erection.”  His claim that the “reason is not psychological but perhaps
physical disorder on the part of private respondent” was his to prove. As held by the Co urt: 
Court:

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

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 protracted 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 "*t+o procreate children based on
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.” 
incapacity.”   It is interesting
interesting to n
note
ote how the Court cited with

approval a finding of the trial court that a husband should assert his right to consummate: 

“An examination of the evidence convinces Us that the husband's plea that the wife did not want carnal
intercourse with him does not inspire belief. Since he was not physically impotent, but he refrained from

sexual intercourse during the entire time (from May 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989) that he occupied the
 

same bed with his wife, purely out of sympathy for her feelings, he deserves to be doubted for not
having asserted his right even though she balked (Tompkins vs. Tompkins, 111 Atl. 599, cited in I Paras,
Civil Code, at p. 330). Besides, if it were true that it is the wife who was suffering from incapacity, the
fact that defendant did not go to court and seek the declaration of nullity weakens his claim. This case
was instituted by the wife whose normal expectations of her marriage were frustrated by her husband's

inadequacy. Considering the innate modesty of the Filipino woman, it is hard to believe that she would
expose her private life to public scrutiny and fabricate testimony against her husband if it were not

necessary to put her life in order and put to rest her marital status. 

We are not impressed by defendant's claim that what the evidence

e vidence proved is the unwillingness or lack of
intention to perform the sexual act, which is not psychological incapacity, and which can be achieved

"through proper motivation." After almost ten months of cohabitation, the admission that the husband
is reluctant or unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife whom he professes to love very dearly,
and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches, is indicative of a
hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological incapacity to
contemplation of the Family Code.“ 
discharge the basic marital covenants within the contemplation

The Court proceeded to state that “l+ove is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an

island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have cared less." This is so because
an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual

intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the
mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation

of family relations.” 

Jimenez vs. Canizares 

From this case, we proceed to the matter of Jimenez vs. Canizares (G.R. No. L-12790, August 31,
1960))[1]
1960 [1],, where a husband filed for annulment upon the ground that his wife’s “vagina was too small to
allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation; that the condition of her genitals as
described above existed at the time of marriage and continues to exist; and that for that reason he left
the conjugal home two nights and one day after they had been married.” He did not wait long in
contrast to the preceding case. Women may indeed be more patient than men. 
 

The wife was summoned and even required to undergo

undergo a physical examination. She was warned that
failure to do so “would be deemed lack of interest on her part in the case and
and that judgment upon the
evidence presented by her husband would be rendered.” 

After hearing and in her absence, the Court “entered a decree annulling the marriage between the
plaintiff and the defendant.” 
defendant.”  This was questioned by the City Attorney citing, among others, it was
“satisfactorily established as required by law; that she had not been physically examined because she
had refused to be examined; that instead of annulling the marriage the Court should have punished her
for contempt of court and compelled her to undergo a physical examination and submit a medical
certificate; xxx.” 

The Court found that the threshold issue was “whether the marriage in question may be annulled on the
strength only of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that his wife was and is
impotent,” when the latter had refused to file an answer, did not attend the hearing and refused a
medical examination. 

The Court set aside the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the lone
testimony of the husband does not suffice to annul their union. It stated that marriage “in this country
is an institution in which the community is deeply interested. The state has surrounded it with
safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The security and stability of the state are
largely dependent upon it. It is the interest of each and every member of the community to prevent the
bringing about of a condition that would shake its foundation and ultimately lead to its destruction. The
incidents of the status are governed by law, not by will of the parties. The law specifically enumerates

the legal grounds that must be proved to exist by indubitable evidence, to annul a marr
marriage.
iage. xxx” 

While it held that the wife may be indifferent, her coy nature may have prevented her participation in
the proceedings. This was in 1960. In the previous case decided in 1997, we see the woman taking the
initiative so some of this bashfulness must have been lost through the years. 

“Although her refusal

refusal to be examined or failure to appear in court show indifference on her part, yet

from such attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or be
inferred because women of this country are by nature coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to a

physical examination unless compelled to by competent authority. This the Court may do without doing
 

violence to and infringing in this case is not self-incrimination. She is not charged with any offense. She
is not being compelled to be a witness against herself. "Impotency being an abnormal condition should
not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency.“ 

In both instances, we see annulments sought grounded on certain incapabilities - one based on
unexplainable indifference and the other on dimensional insufficiency. One was granted despite a
husband’s medical proof of potency, notwithstanding some softening in his stand (pun intended) the
o n how the husband is supposed to prove his case. 
other was not although one can only speculate on

Relationships are not supposed to be built by litigation. If the parties expended as much effort on
making the marriage work as they did in filing cases, perhaps there could have been different results. In
the end, while the law can step in where all else fails, it is love, not size, not money, not riches and not
status that truly does matter for any marriage to work. 

[1]  Please note that the law has changed since then. The grounds for annulment under the Civil Code were a s
[1]

follows: 

ARTICLE 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:  

(1)  That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was between the ages of sixteen and

twenty years, if male, or between the ages of fourteen and eighteen years, if female, and the marriage was

solemnized without the consent of the parent, guardian or person having authority
a uthority over the party, unless after

attaining the ages of twenty or eighteen years, as the case may be, such party freely cohabited with the other and

both lived together as husband and wife;  

(2)  In a subsequent marriage under article 83, number 2, that the former husband or wife believed to be dead was in

fact living and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force; 

(3)  That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party, after coming to reason, fr eely cohabited with the other

as husband or wife;  

(4)  That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the

facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as her husband or his wife, as the case may be;  

(5)  That the consent of either party was obtained by force or intimidation, unless the violence or threat having

disappeared, such party afterwards freely cohabited with the other as her husband or his wife, as the case may be;  
 

(6)  That either party was, at the time of marriage, physically incapable of entering into the married state, and such

incapacity continues, and appears to be incurable. (30a) 

a re as follows:  
Under the Family Code, the grounds are

ARTICLE 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:  

(1)  That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but

below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person

having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one,

such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;  

(2)  That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other

as husband and wife; 

(3)  That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the

facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;  

(4)  That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same h aving

disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;  

(5)  That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity

continues and appears to be incurable; or  

(6)  That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and aappears
ppears to be

incurable. (85a) 

NEWER POST 
POST  | PREVIOUS POST 
POST 

Labels:  Annulment
Labels:  Annulment of Marriage
Marriage,, Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA , Jimenez vs. Canizares,
Canizares, physical
disorder,,psychological incapacity  
disorder

POSTED BY THE LEGALLY INCLINED AT  9/24/2011 11:08:00 AM

0 COMMENTS:

POST A COMMENT  

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

[Atom]  

LINKS TO THIS POST:

CREATE A LINK   
 

<< Home

BEST VIEWED ON MOZILLA FIREFOX.

POSTS ON THIS PAGE

SIZE DOES MATTER: Annulment based on insignificant proportions

THE LEGALLY INCLINED BLOG IS AIMED AT ENLIGHTENING NON-L AWYERS ABOUT THE

LAW (MORE OR LESS) AND MAKING LEGAL ISSUES CLEAR AND INTERESTING.

IF YOU NEED PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR NEAREST PUBLIC

 A T T O R N E Y S ‟ O F F I C E ( P  A O ) .

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTACT U S DIRECTLY, YOU MAY USE THIS  FORM.  

PRODUCED IN THE PHILIPPINES BY PHILIPPINE LAWYERS.

RECENT POSTS
 

  WHEN CAR MAKERS

 MAKERS GIVE YOU
YOU LEMONS,
LEMONS, YOU‟D WISH YOU
YOU COULD MAKE
MAKE
LEMONADE: The “Philippine Lemon Law” 
Law” 
  DAP if you do, DAP if you don‟t: A question of constitutionality 
 constitutionality  
  CYBER ISSUES: The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality
 constitutionality of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012

  TIME‟S UP! (Time to change from Philippine Time to Philippine Standard Time)
  DISCOUNTING INTENTIONS: DTI‟s Diskwento Caravan 
 Caravan 
  IN ONE EAR OUT THE OTHER (The storm surge we were advised of but did nothing


about)
  PREPARING FOR AN EARTHQUAKE: Learning from the Metro Manila Earthquake


Impact Reduction Study

  BULLISH ON ANTI-BULLYING: Anti-Bullying Act of 2013


  BIR‟S SWORD OF DAMOCLES: BIR requires keeping Books of Account for 10 years 
 years 
  PUBLIC-PRIV
 PUBLIC-PRIVATE
ATE PARTNERSHIP IN CRIME: Plunder
  GIFT CHECK: SEC Office Order No. 394


  HOUSE RULES (The Kasambahay law)



  Oldies and their Goodies (Documentary requirements to avail of benefits as a Senior



Citizen)
  VICE NOT-SO-GANDA
 NOT-SO-GANDA (Why rape
rape should never be made
made light of)
  TUBBATAHA GRIEF (The decision to impose a mere USD1.4M or PhP60M fine for the


US Navy ship‟s grounding

grounding on the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park adds insult to injury)
  P5 COIN TRUMPS P1.8B PCOS MACHINE (San Teodoro elects its mayor via a coin


toss)
  THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS OF THE RECOGNIZANCE ACT OF 2012 (Why The


Requirements In Granting Release on Recognizance To An Indigent Accused May

 Actually Hinder
Hinder His Release)
Release)
  TRACK RECORD: Using GPS on Suspects


  HULI-DAP AND THE LIKE: When Probable Cause is a Pre-requisite to a Warrantles

 Warrantlesss
 Arrest and Search
Search

FEATURED PAGES

  LAW 101


 


LIMERICK ARCHIVE
 

  TOP 5 ARCHIVE


LEGAL NOTICE

© Copyright The Legally Inclined, 2007. All Rights Reserved.

The information in the various pages of this blog site are issued by The Legally Inclined
for general distribution. The information presented is protected under international
conventions and under national laws on copyright and neighboring rights.
Reproduction,, translation, modification, distribution or republication of any portion of
Reproduction
the blog shall require explicit, prior authorization in writing. Any use of information in
the blog should be accompani
accompanied ed by an acknowledgment
acknowledgment of The Legally Inclined as the
source citing the uniform resource locator (URL) of the article, or by requesting
permission from the original copyright source, when applicable.

The Legally Inclined do not warrant that the information contained in the web site is
complete and correct and shall not be liable whatsoever for any damages incurred as a
result of its use.

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
[Atom]  

LINKS


  Supreme Court of the Philippines
  Securities and Exchange Commission


  Departmen
 Departmentt of Labor and Employment
  University of the Philippines College of Law


Technorati Profile