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.