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.