CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.

FACTS:

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their
wedding, they proceed to the house of defendants mother. There was no sexual
intercourse between them during their first night and same thing happened until
their fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place, they
went to Baguio but Ginas relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual
intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or
sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989
they slept together in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between
them. Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examination to an
urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical
examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential
even the medicine prescribed.

The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did
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 I the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man.

Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared
void on the ground of psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does
not want to have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much, he has
no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and since their
relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi
submitted himself to another physical examination and the result was there is no
evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection and capable of having sexual
intercourse with a woman.

ISSUE:

Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes
psychological incapacity.

HELD:

The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly

indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme 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.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn
refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code
is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally
destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.