CASE OF CHI MING TSOI VS CA AND GINA LAO TSOI.docx

Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA GR No. 119190, January 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 the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. 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 Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the country. 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.

ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological incapacity.

HELD:

The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.

If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of

the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.

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

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. 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.

CHI MING TSOI VS. C.A.

266 SCRA 324, January 16 1997

J., Torres, Jr.

Facts: On May 22, 1988, Gina Lao married Chi Ming Tsoi. Since their marriage until their separation on March 15, 1989, there was no sexual contact between them. Gina filed a case of annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity with the RTC of Quezon City. The RTC granted annulment which was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Is the failure to the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife from the time of the marriage until their separation on March 15 1989 a ground for psychological incapacity.

Ruling: On 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

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA & Gina Lao-Tsoi G.R. No. 119190: January 16, 1997 SUPREME COURT

The Parties

Petitioner – Chi Ming Tsoi Respondent – Court of Appeals & Gina Lao - Tsoi Procedural History

This case was originally commenced by a distraught wife against her uncaring husband in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 89) 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 (CA-G.R. CV No. 42758) which affirmed the Trial Court's decision on November 29, 1994 and correspondingly denied the motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated February 14, 1995. The Facts

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. Petitioner contends that the lower court erred in concluding that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making any findings of fact. In holding that the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent.

In holding that the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have sex with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both. In affirming the annulment of the marriage between the parties decreed by the lower court without fully satisfying itself that there was no collusion between them. The Issue Whether or not the refusal of the petitioner to have sex with his wife constitutes a Psychological Incapacity and therefore a ground for the annulment of their marriage? The Holding Yes, 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.

Court's Reasoning

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. While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor 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 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. 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. Marital union is a twoway process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect,

sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.The reasoning, or rationale, is the chain of argument which led the judges in either a majority or a dissenting opinion to rule as they did. This should be outlined point by point in numbered sentences or paragraphs.

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 119190 FACTS: Chi MinTsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi were married for 10 months. But still their marriage was not consummated because the husband refuses to have sexual intercourse with his spouse. Even if she already made efforts, they still failed to consummate their marriage by performing coitus. The spouses decided to undergo a medical check up to see if there was something wrong with them. The Doctor found out that there was nothing wrong with their organs and that the man was not impotent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is psychological incapacity, which may be a ground for annulment, in the light of Article 36 of the Family Code.

HELD: 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 (See Santos vs. Court of Appeals)

REASONING: 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.

266 SCRA 324, January 16, 1997 [Psychological Incapacity]

FACTS: On May 22, 1988, Gina Lao married Chi Ming Tsoi. Since their marriage until their separation on March 15, 1989, there was no sexual contact between them. Gina filed a case of annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity with the RTC of Quezon City. RTC granted the annulment which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife from the time of the marriage celebration until their separation a ground for psychological incapacity.

RULING: Yes. 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." Senseless, protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfil the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA 266 SCRA 324

FACTS: Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi got married on May 22, 1988 in Manila. Then months after the wedding there had not been sexual intercourse between the couple despite the fact that they have slept together in the same room and in the same bed at that time. Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examination. The results were that she is healthy, normal and still a virgin while that of her husband’s was kept confidential up to this time. The wife claims that he is impotent and a closet homosexual. The trial court declared their marriage null and void and was affirmed by the CA, hence the present petition.

ISSUE; Is Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife indicative of his psychological incapacity?

HELD: 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. 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. As such, the court sustained the judgment of the appellate court and the petitioned denied for lack of merit.