G.R. No. 119190.

January 16, 1997

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and GINA TSOI, respondent.
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, where no sexual intercourse occurred between
them during their first night through their fourth night of being together as husband and wife. 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 a 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. There were
allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status
here in the country. Effectively Gina refused to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and wanted 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 on the ground that 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 not substantive to stand as evidence
of impotency and it shows that he is capable of erection
ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes
psychological incapacity.
RULING:
The abnormal reluctance and 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-fulfilment
of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.