CHI MING TSOI - v - CA
Jan. 16, 1997, GR 119190
6.
Plaintiff claims …
Ponente: Torres, Jr., J
Facts:
1.
On May 22, 1988, plaintiff married defendant in
Intramuros, Manila.
2.
After the celebration of their marriage and the
reception, they went on the house of Gina’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them
during the first, second, third and fourth nights.
3.
For their honeymoon, they went to Baguio for
their first week of being husband and wife with some of her relatives for four
days. No sexual intercourse occurred.
4.
From May 22 1988 to March 15 1989 they slept
together in the same room and on the same bed but there was no attempt of
sexual intercourse between them.
5.
They submitted themselves for medical
examinations to a urologist on June
1989. Defendant is healthy, normal and still a virgin while her husband’s examination was kept
confidential.
-
Husband is impotent, a closet homosexual
-
Married her to acquire or maintain his residency status and to publicly
maintain the appearance of a normal man
7.
Husband claims that if their marriage shall be
annulled by psychological incapacity, the fault lies with his wife but does not
want his wife annulled for several reasons …
-
He loves her very much
-
He has no defect on his part, physically and psychologically capable
-
Relationship is still very young
On not having sex: His wife is the one avoiding him.
8.
Husband submitted himself to a physical
examination and results showed he is capable of having sex with a woman.
9.
RTC declared marriage VOID. CA AFFIRMED.
Issue: WON there is psychological
incapacity in the part of Chi Ming Tsoi
Held/Ratio: Court AFFIRMED decision of
CA. Petition DENIED.
The issue 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 10 months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not
suffering from any physical disability. Such abnormal reluctance to
consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality
disorder which to the mind of this Court clearly demonstrates “utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage” within the meaning of Art. 36
of the Family Code.
If a spouse, although physically
capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage
obligations, and the refusal s senseless and constant, Catholic marriage
tribunals attribute the cases 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.
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.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
