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

FACTS:

• Sometime on May 22, 1988, the plaintiff married the defendant at the Manila Cathedral, . . . Intramuros
Manila, as evidenced by their Marriage Contract. After the celebration of their marriage and wedding
reception at the South Villa, Makati, they went and proceeded to the house of defendant's mother.
There, 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 the first night. The same thing happened on the
second, third and fourth nights.
• In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place where they can enjoy together during their first
week as husband and wife, they went to Baguio City. But, they did so together with her mother, an
uncle, his mother and his nephew. They were all invited by the defendant to join them. [T]hey stayed in
Baguio City for four (4) days. But, during this period, there was no sexual intercourse between them,
since the defendant avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on a
rocking chair located at the living room. They slept together in the same room and on the same bed
since May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989. But during this period, there was no attempt of sexual
intercourse between them. [S]he claims, that she did not: even see her husband's private parts nor did
he see hers.
• Both of them submitted themselves for medical examinations and results does not show any
impotence.
• On the other hand, it is the claim of the defendant that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason of
psychological incapacity, the fault lies with his wife.
• But, he said that he does not want his marriage with his wife annulled for several reasons, viz: (1) that
he loves her very much; (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically
capable; and, (3) since the relationship is still very young and if there is any differences between the
two of them, it can still be reconciled and that, according to him, if either one of them has some
incapabilities, there is no certainty that this will not be cured. He further claims, that if there is any
defect, it can be cured by the intervention of medical technology or science.
• The defendant admitted that since their marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15,
1989, there was no sexual contact between them. But, the reason for this, according to the defendant,
was that every time he wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she always avoided him and
whenever he caresses her private parts, she always removed his hands. The defendant claims, that he
forced his wife to have sex with him only once but he did not continue because she was shaking and
she did not like it. So he stopped.
• There are two (2) reasons, according to the defendant, why the plaintiff filed this case against him, and
these are: (1) that she is afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces of jewelry of his mother, and,
(2) that her husband, the defendant, will consummate their marriage.
• The RTC and the CA ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Miss Gina Lao-Tsoi. Hence the petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA is correct affirming the RTC’s decision declaring the Tsoi’s marriage VOID.

RULING:
• Yes. The SC agrees with the CA’s statement.
• 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
• there is nothing in the record to show that he had tried to find out or discover
what the problem with his wife could be. What he presented in evidence is his
doctor's Medical Report that there is no evidence of his impotency and he is
capable of erection. Since it is petitioner's claim that the reason is not
psychological but perhaps physical disorder on the part of private respondent, it
became incumbent upon him to prove such a claim.
• 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.
• 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- 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.
• An examination of the evidence convinces Us that the husband's plea that the
wife did not want carnal intercourse with him does not inspire belief. Since he
was not physically impotent, but he refrained from sexual intercourse during the
entire time (from May 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989) that he occupied the same
bed with his wife, purely out of symphaty for her feelings, he deserves to be
doubted for not having asserted his right seven though she balked Besides, if it
were true that it is the wife was suffering from incapacity, the fact that defendant
did not go to court and seek the declaration of nullity weakens his claim.
• 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
• Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest
act of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have cared less." This is so because an
ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural
order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual
intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which
enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.
• It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private respondent.
• Chi Ming Tsoi’s petition id denied for lack of merit. Their marriage is Void.
CHI MING TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GINA LAO-TSOI GR NO. 119190 January
16, 1997

FACTS: Ching married Gina on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila as evidenced by their
marriage contract. After the celebration they had a reception and then proceeded to the house of the Ching
Ming Tsoi’s mother. There they slept together on the same bed in the same room for the first night of their
married life.
Gina’s version: that contrary to her expectations that as newlyweds they were supposed to enjoy making love
that night of their marriage, or having sexual intercourse, with each other, Ching however just went to bed,
slept on one side and then turned his back and went to sleep. There was no sexual intercourse between them
that night. The same thing happened on the second, third and fourth nights. In an effort to have their honey
moon in a private place where they can enjoy together during their first week as husband and wife they went to
Baguio City. But they did so together with Ching’s mother, uncle and nephew as they were all invited by her
husband. There was no sexual intercourse between them for four days in Baguio since Ching avoided her by
taking a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room. They slept
together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22, 1988 (day of their marriage) until March 15,
1989 (ten months). But during this period there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Gina
claims that she did not even see her husband’s private parts nor did he see hers. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag. Results were that Gina is healthy, normal and
still a virgin while Ching’s examination was kept confidential up to this time. The Gina claims that her husband
is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not show his penis. She said she had observed him using an eyebrow
pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. She also said her husband only married her to acquire
or maintain his residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man
Ching’s version: he claims that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason of psychological incapacity, the
fault lies with Gina. He does not want their marriage annulled for reasons of (1) that he loves her very much (2)
that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically capable (3) since the relationship is
still very young and if there is any differences between the two of them, it can still be reconciled and that
according to him, if either one of them has some incapabilities, there is no certainty that this will not be cured.
Ching admitted that since his marriage to Gina there was no sexual contact between them. But, the reason for
this, according to the defendant, was that everytime he wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she
always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, she always removed his hands.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ching is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
of marriage

RULING: 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.

RATIO: 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 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 this
marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity. While the law provides that the husband
and the wife are obliged to live together, observer mutual love, respect and fidelity, the sanction
therefore is actually the “spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal
mandate or court order (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared
with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say “I could
not have cared less.” This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but
himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy that brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual
intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope
of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.
SANTOS vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 112019; January 4, 1995
Art. 36(Civil Code)- PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

FACTS: Leouel Santos, a member of the Army, met Julia in Iloilo City. In September 20, 1986, they got
married. The couple latter lived with Julia’s parents. Julia gave birth to a son in 1987. Their marriage,
however, was marred by the frequent interference of Julia’s parent as averred by Leouel. The couple
also occasionally quarrels about as to, among other things, when should they start living
independently from Julia’s parents. In 1988, Julia went to the US to work as a nurse despite Leouel’s
opposition. 7 months later, she and Leouel got to talk and she promised to return home in 1989. She
never went home that year. In 1990, Leouel got the chance to be in the US due to a military training.
During his stay, he desperately tried to locate his wife but to no avail. Leouel, in an effort to at least
have his wife come home, Leouel filed with the regional trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a
complaint for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code" in 1991.Leouel asserted that
due to Julia’s failure to return home or at least communicate with him even with all his effort
constitutes psychological incapacity. Julia attacked the complaint and she said that it is Leouel who is
incompetent. The prosecutor ascertained that there is no collusion between the two. Leouel’s petition
is however denied by the lower and appellate court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of Julia to return home or at the very least to
communicate with her husband,for more than five (5) years constitute psychological
incapacity.

RULINGS: No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband
Leouel for more than five (5) years does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which
(Art. 68), include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity and render help and support.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity
to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This
psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
The SC also notes that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such
that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in
marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be
incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the
party involved.
In the case at bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be dismissed
because the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife is not clearly shown by the
factual settings presented. The factual settings do not come close to to the standard
required to decree a nullity of marriage.
Petition is denied.
COPILOT DIGEST

**Case Digest: G.R. No. 112019 Leouel Santos vs. CA**

**Facts:**
Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, married Julia Rosario
Bedia-Santos in Iloilo City on September 20, 1986¹. They lived with Julia's parents
and had a son¹. However, due to frequent interference by Julia's parents and
other disagreements, their relationship became strained¹. Julia left for the United
States to work as a nurse on May 18, 1988, despite Leouel's pleas¹. She promised
to return home after her contract expired in July 1989 but never did¹. Leouel
tried to locate her during his visit to the U.S. but failed¹. Consequently, he filed a
complaint for "Voiding of Marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code" with the
Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental¹.

**Issue:**
The issue was whether Julia's failure to return home or communicate with Leouel
for more than five years showed her being psychologically incapacitated to enter
into married life².

**Ruling:**
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit³. Leouel
appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court².
The Supreme Court also denied the petition². The court held that the factual
settings in the case could not meet the standards required to decree a nullity of
marriage².

**Provisions under the 1987 Philippine Constitution:**

The case primarily dealt with Article 36 of the Family Code (as amended by E.O.
No. 227 dated 17 July 1987), which declares a marriage void if either party was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage at the time of the celebration¹. This provision, while not directly from
the 1987 Philippine Constitution, is part of the Philippine legal framework
established under the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not contain
specific provisions on psychological incapacity in marriage. However, it
recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation and commits the
State to strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.
**Case Digest: G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 - Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of
Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi**

**Facts:**
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi got married on May 22, 1988¹⁴. Despite sharing
the same bed for almost ten months, there was no sexual intercourse between
them¹⁴. Medical examinations showed that Gina is healthy, normal, and still a
virgin, while the results of Chi Ming's examination were kept confidential¹⁴.

**Issue:**
The main issue is whether the refusal of a couple to have sexual intercourse with
each other constitutes psychological incapacity⁴.

**Ruling:**
The Supreme Court affirmed the annulment of the marriage between Chi Ming
Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi on the ground of psychological incapacity⁵. The court
ruled that the totality of evidence showed that Chi Ming is suffering from a
psychological condition that is grave, incurable, and has juridical antecedence³.

**Provisions under the 1987 Philippine Constitution:**

The case relates to Article 36 of the Family Code, which allows the annulment of a
marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity³. This provision is in line
with the principles of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which aims to build a just
and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony,
and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and
democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love,
equality, and peace.