To be reported by Rolando V.

Enquig
G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997
MING TSOI, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.
This case was originally decided by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 89) in
favor of the wife who was the petitioner for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground
of Psychological Incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Petitioner CHI MING TSOI appealed the decision of the trial court to respondent Court of
Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 42758) which affirmed the Trial Court's decision November 29, 1994
and correspondingly denied the motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated February 14,
1995.
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: Is the failure of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife from the time of the
marriage until their separation on March 15, 1989 a ground for psychological incapacity

HELD: 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 fulfill the above marital obligation 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 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.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ART. 36 (FAMILY CODE)

TITLE III.
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

Psychological incapacity, which a ground for annulment of marriage (which is different from divorce),
contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital
obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical
abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not
warrant a finding of psychological incapacity.
Among the grounds for annulment of marriage, psychological incapacity is the more (if not the
most) commonly used. It is also one of the more controversial provisions of the Family
Code (Article 36). The guidelines (shortened here) in the interpretation and application of Article
36 were handed down by the Supreme Court in Molina:
1. The plaintiff (the spouse who filed the petition in court) has burden of showing the nullity of
the marriage. Our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family, so any doubt is
resolved in favor of the existence/continuation of the marriage.
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. Expert evidence may be
given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their I dos.
The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must
have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to
the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the
exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes.
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated
in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.