Persons and Family Relations

Professor: Atty. Estolloso

Ponente:
GR No. 119190
Tsoi vs CA January 16, 1997 Submitted by: Submitted on:

Petitioners: Respondents:
CHI MING TSOI COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

Motion for Reconsideration

NATURE OF PETITION:
This case was originally commenced by a distraught wife against her uncaring husband in the Regional Trial
Court which decreed the annulment of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Petitioner
appealed the decision of the trial court to respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the Trial Court's
decision November 29, 1994 and correspondingly denied the motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated
February 14, 1995.

RELEVANT LAWS:
Article 36 of the Family Code – Psychological Incapacity

(if pwede, paste here the law in question or used, only the relevant part)
FACTS:
On May 22, 1988 petitioner and private respondent got married. After the marriage ceremony and
wedding reception, they proceeded to the house of the petitioner’s mother where they slept together on
the same bed in the same room for the first night of their married life. There was no sexual intercourse
between them during their first night until the fourth night.
Even during their four-day honeymoon in Baguio, nothing happened between the husband and the wife.
So on January 20, 1989, the couple submitted themselves for medical examination. The findings showed
that the wife is very healthy and still a virgin, while that of the husband was kept confidential even up to
this time. Due to this, the wife decided to file for annulment on the ground of Psychological Incapacity of
her husband, which then the husband countered that it was the wife who is Psychologically incapacitated.
The RTC granted the wife’s appeal, decreeing their marriage annulled. The husband filed an appeal but
the Court of Appeals only affirmed the decision of the RTC and denied the motion for reconsideration filed
by the petitioner, thus, this petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues Ruling
Whether or not the abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to
consummate their marriage is an indication of Psychological Incapacity. YES

RULING:

Evidently, 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-fulfilment 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.
Disposition