CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.

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

FACTS

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao got married and after the reception they went straight ahead to the house of petitioner. According to Gina, contrary to her expectations, that as newly weds they supposed to enjoy making love but the defendant just sleep which repeatedly happened until the fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in private place they went to Baguio City but defendant invited members of the family and there were no sexual intercourse happened due to defendant avoided it by taking a long walk or sleeping on a rocking chair located in the living room. For almost a year of marriage, they slept together in the same room and on the same bed but there was no attempt for sexual intercourse between them and she claims that they even did not saw the private parts of each other. And because of this they went to urologist which the result of examination and medications of Chi Ming Tsoi was kept confidential to her. Gina Lao claims that the defendant is impotent and a closet homosexual and married her to obtain residency status and to publicly maintain the appearance of normal man. She filed for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity which was granted by RTC and affirmed by CA.

The petitioner admitted that there was no sexual contact between him and his wife due to every time he touches his wife; she avoided and was shaking as she did not like it. He claims that the defect is not on him but on his wife having physical disorder. He also submitted himself to physical examination, wherein his penis was examined whether he is impotent or not and the result finds no evidence of impotency and even he has soft erection he is capable of having sexual intercourse with a woman. He demanded that their marriage will remain valid for the reasons that (1) he loves her very much (2) and the marriage is too young and there still a chance to overcome their differences.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have sex with each other constitutes psychological incapacity

RULING:

YES. Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which clearly demonstrates an ‘utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage’ which is within the meaning of psychological incapacity. Constant nonfulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage.

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.”  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. It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private respondent. That is—a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion.

Share: