Case Digest: Tsoi v. CA

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner vs COURT OF APPEALS, defendant
GR No. 119190. January 16, 1997

Facts:

Sometime on May 22, 1988, Gina and Chi Ming Tsoi were married as evidence by their marriage contract. From May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15, 1989, there was no sexual contact between them. Gina made attempts for sexual activity to no avails. Medical examinations showed that both Gina and Chi Ming Tsoi were capaple of sexual conduct. Gina was still a virgin at the time of the medical examination. Gina filed a motion for declaration of nullity and the Trial Court declared their marriage as void. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi subsequently filed a motion to the Supreme Court citing that it was she and not he that had the problem regarding sexual intimacy.

Issue:

Whether or not non-desire of sexual consumation be an indicator of psychological incapacity?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found the petition to be bereft of merit. Since the action to declare the marriage void may be filed by either party, the question of who refuses to have sex with the other becomes immaterial. 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. Aligned with this is the essential marital obligation, “the 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.

After ten months of marriage, the reluctance to perform the sexual act was 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.

Share this:

Leave a Reply