109 CHI MING TSOI vs CA

G.R. No. 119190

DATE: January 16, 1997 Chi Ming Tsoi admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten
By: Molina months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical disability.
Topic: Psychological Incapacity Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative
Petitioner: Chi Ming Tsoi of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Court clearly demonstrates an
Respondent: CA and Gina Lao-Tsoi ‘utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage’ within the
Ponente: J. Torres Jr meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.

But the fact remains that there has never been coitus between them. At any rate, since the
DOCTRINE: Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus,
action to declare the marriage void may be filed by either party, the question of who refuses
the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is
to have sex with the other becomes immaterial.
considered a sign of psychological incapacity.

FACTS:

 On 22 May 1988, Chi Ming Tsoi and the Gina Lao 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.
 Gina claims, that the Chi Ming Tsoi 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. Gina
is not willing to reconcile with her husband.
 Chi Ming Tsoi claims that should the marriage be annulled since 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
jewelry 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alleged refusal of the spouses to have sex with each other constitutes
psychological incapacity.

RULING:

Yes. Senseless and protracted refusal to consummate the marriage is equivalent to

psychological incapacity.

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.