Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA, GR # 119190 DIGEST

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.
TORRES, JR., J.:
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
This case was originally commenced by a distraught wife against her uncaring
husband in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which decreed the annulment of the
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
The plaintiff married the defendant at the Manila Cathedral, . . . Intramuros

Manila. After the celebration of their marriage, they went and proceeded to the house of
defendant's mother.
There, they slept together on the same bed in the same room for the first night of
their married life.
In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place they went to Baguio City. But,
they did so together with her mother, an uncle, his mother and his nephew. They were
all invited by the defendant to join them.
[T]hey stayed in Baguio City for four (4) days. But, during this period, there was no
sexual intercourse between them, since the defendant avoided her by taking a long
walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room.
They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22, 1988 until
March 15, 1989. But during this period, there was no attempt of sexual intercourse
between them. [S]he claims, that she did not: even see her husband's private parts nor
did he see hers.
Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations. The results of
their physical examinations were that she is healthy, normal and still a virgin, while that
of her husband's examination was kept confidential up to this time.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
It is the version of the plaintiff, that contrary to her expectations, that as

newlyweds they were supposed to enjoy making love, or having sexual intercourse, with
each other, the defendant just went to bed, slept on one side thereof, then turned his
back and went to sleep . There was no sexual intercourse between them during the first
night. The same thing happened on the second, third and fourth nights.
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 in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
It is the claim of the defendant that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason
of psychological incapacity, the fault lies with his wife.
But, he said that he does not want his marriage with his wife annulled for several
reasons, viz:
(1) That he loves her very much;

(2) That he has no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically
capable; and,
(3) Since the relationship is still very young and if there is any differences between
the two of them, it can still be reconciled and that, according to him, if either one of
them has some incapabilities, there is no certainty that this will not be cured.
He further claims that if there is any defect, it can be cured by the intervention of
medical technology or science.
The defendant admitted that since their marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation
on March 15, 1989, there was no sexual contact between them. But, the reason for this,
according to the defendant, was that everytime he wants to have sexual intercourse
with his wife, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, she
always removed his hands. The defendant claims, that he forced his wife to have sex
with him only once but he did not continue because she was shaking and she did not
like it. So he stopped.
There are two (2) reasons, according to the defendant , why the plaintiff filed this
case against him, and these are:
(1) that she is afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces of jewelry of his
mother, and,
(2) that her husband, the defendant, will consummate their marriage.
The defendant submitted himself to a physical examination. His penis was examined for
the purpose of finding out whether he is impotent . The doctor said, that he asked the
defendant to masturbate to find out whether or not he has an erection and he found out
that from the original size of two (2) inches, or five (5) centimeters, the penis of the
defendant lengthened by one (1) inch and one centimeter. But, still is capable of further
erection, in that with his soft erection, the defendant is capable of having sexual
intercourse with a woman.
The court rendered judgment, declaring as VOID the marriage entered into by the
plaintiff with the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE REFUSAL OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO HAVE

SEXUAL COMMUNION WITH PETITIONER IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
RULING:
YES,
The Court held that, 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." Constant non-
fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the 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.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn
refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her
spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity

Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA, GR # 119190 DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA, GR # 119190 DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,

TORRES, JR., J.:

The plaintiff married the defendant at the Manila Cathedral, . . . Intramuros

It is the version of the plaintiff, that contrary to her expectations, that as

The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual as he

(1) That he loves her very much;

WHETHER OR NOT THE REFUSAL OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO HAVE

You might also like