Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA, GR # 119190 DIGEST
Chi Ming Tsoi Vs CA, GR # 119190 DIGEST
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.
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:
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:
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:
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