SISON, YOLANDA

2014-0108

CHI MING TSOI v. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI

GR. NO. 119190, 16 JANUARY 1977, SECOND DIVISION (TORRES, JR., J)

Facts:

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao were married on May 22, 1988. They slept together on the same
bed, but contrary to Gina Lao’s expectations, Chi Ming Tsoi went to bed and sleep, hence, there was no
sexual intercourse between them during the first night until the fourth night. On their first week as
husband and wife, they went to Baguio City and stayed for four (4) days, still, there was no sexual
intercourse between them since Chi Ming Tsoi avoided Gina Lao by taking a long walk during siesta time
or by sleeping on a rocking chair. They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May
22, 1988 until March 15, 1989, but there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. They
submitted themselves for medical examinations and the results of their physical examinations were that
Gina Lao is healthy, normal and a virgin, hence no further treatment and medication was prescribed,
while that of the Chi Ming Tsoi’s examination was kept confidential and the doctor prescribed
medications. The former claimed that the latter is impotent, a closet homosexual, that he married her to
maintain his residency status in the Philippines, and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man.

On the other hand, Chi Ming Tsoi claimed that the psychological incapacity lies in his wife, since
she had been avoiding the instances of having sexual intercourse with him when he wanted to and that if
there is any defect, there is a certainty that it will be cured by the intervention of medical technology or
science. Chi Ming Tsoi, submitted himself to a physical examination, and results showed that there is no
evidence of impotency and sterility.

Issue 1:

Does prolonged refusal of a spouse to perform the essential marital obligation constitutes
psychological incapacity?

Held 1:

Supreme Court held that “After almost ten months of cohabitation, the admission that the
husband is reluctant or unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife whom he professes to love very
dearly, and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches, is indicative of a
hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological incapacity to
discharge the basic marital covenants within the contemplation of the Family Code.”

In addition, Supreme Court said that “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.”
Issue 2:

Does the psychological incapacity of Chi Ming Tsoi suffice to nullify their marriage?

Held 2:

The Supreme Court said that “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.” Hence, “This Court, finding the gravity of the failed
relationship in which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated
marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of respondent appellate court.”

Issue 2 (a):

Is the decision affirmed by the Supreme Court based on stipulation of facts or confession of
judgement?

Held 2 (a):

The Supreme Court held that “The judgment of the trial court which was affirmed by this Court is not
based on a stipulation of facts. The issue of whether or not the appellant is psychologically incapacitated to
discharge a basic marital obligation was resolved upon a review of both the documentary and testimonial evidence
on record. Appellant admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten months of
cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical disability. Such abnormal reluctance or
unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind
of this Court clearly demonstrates an 'utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage' within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that “The assailed decision was not based on such a judgment on the
pleadings. When private respondent testified under oath before the trial court and was cross-examined by oath
before the trial court and was cross-examined by the adverse party, she thereby presented evidence in form of a
testimony. After such evidence was presented, it became incumbent upon petitioner to present his side. He admitted
that since their marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15, 1989, there was no sexual
intercourse between them.”