CHI MING TSOI vs COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI

GR No. 119190, 266 SCRA 324 ,January 16,1997

Petitioner: Chi Ming Tsoi
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi
Ponente: Justo P. Torres, Jr.

Facts:

The petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi married the respondent Gina Lao- Tsoi on May
22, 1988. However from the date of their marriage until March 15, 1988, the said
couple failed to consummate their marriage.Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag, a urologist at the
Chinese General Hospital. The results of the wife’s examinations confirmed her
good health and virginity while that of her husband’s was kept confidential.
Eventually, Gina Lao-Tsoi filed for the annulment of their marriage on the
grounds of psychological incapacity in the RTC of Quezon City.The plaintiff
further claimed that the marriage was made to cover up the husband’s impotence
and homosexuality as well as to maintain the residency status of the latter in the
country.On the other hand, the defendant denounced all accusations and admitted
willingness to save their marriage.He asserted that the plaintiff filed the case
because the of the wife’s fear of returning her mother-in-law’s jewelries and
having sexual contact with the defendant. He then submitted himself for another
physical examination to Dr. Alteza who confirmed that the husband is still
capable of having sexual intercourse with a woman despite the latter’s diminutive
genitalia. The prosecutor declared that there is no collusion between the parties
and all evidences were not fabricated. After trial, the marriage was rendered null
and void by the RTC on November 29,1994 and the said decision was confirmed
by the Court of Appeals thereafter.A motion for reconsideration dated February
14,1995 was correspondingly denied.

Issue:
 Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi’s continued refusal to have sexual
communion constitutes psychological incapacity
 Whether or not the affirmation of the conclusion of the lower court that
there were no sexual intercourse was made without any findings of fact
Ruling:
 Yes. 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.

 No. The judgement of the trial court which was affirmed by the CA is
not based on stipulation of facts but rather on the the review of both the
documentary and testimonial evidence on record.
 SA
Similar Cases:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs
COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA
GR No. 108763, 268 SCRA 98, February 13,1977
Petitioner:
Respondents:
Ponente: Justo P. Torres, Jr.