Você está na página 1de 2

Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals and Gina Lao Tsoi

G.R. No. 119190 Jan. 16, 1997

Facts:

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding,
they proceed to the house of defendant’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse between
them during their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an effort to
have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went with
them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse . 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 1989. The result of the
physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential
even the medicine prescribed. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want 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 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 there is not evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.
RTC granted the annulment and was also affirmed by the CA.

Issue:

Whether or not the inability of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife for more
than 10 months constitute a ground for annulment by reason of psychological incapacity.

HELD:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals in rendering as
VOID the marriage entered into by Ching and Gina on May 22, 1988. No costs.

The Supreme Court held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with
his or her spouse is considered a sign of 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.
One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is “to procreate children basedon
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 this marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.