8/12/2019 Casedigest(Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA 266 Scra 324 (1997))

1/2

Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA Leave a comment

266 SCRA 324

FACTS:

Private respondent Gina Loi and petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi were married at the Manila

Cathedral on May 22, 1988. Contrary to Ginas epe!tations that the newlyweds were to

en"oy ma#ing love or having se$al inter!o$rse with ea!h other, the de%endant "$st went

to &ed, slept on one side thereo%, then t$rned his &a!# and went to sleep. 'o se$al

inter!o$rse o!!$rred d$ring their (rst night, se!ond, third and %o$rth night.

)rom May 22, 1988 $ntil Mar!h 1*, 1989, they slept together in the same room and on

the same &ed &$t d$ring this period, there was no attempt o% se$al inter!o$rse

&etween them. + !ase was then (led to de!lare the ann$lment o% the marriage on the

gro$nd o% psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity. Gina alleged that Chi Ming was impotent, a !loset

homose$al as he did not show him his penis !lini!ally %o$nd to &e only - in!hes and 1

!m. when ere!t. /e%endant admitted that no se$al !onta!t was ever made and

a!!ording to him everytime he wanted to have se$al inter!o$rse with his wi%e, she

always avoided him and whenever he !aressed her private parts she always removed

his hands.

ISSUE:

0s the re%$sal o% private respondent to have se$al !omm$nion with petitioner a

psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity i3

HELD:

0% a spo$se, altho$gh physi!ally !apa&le &$t simply re%$ses to per%orm his or her

essential marriage o&ligations, and the re%$sal is senseless and !onstant, Catholi!

marriage tri&$nals attri&$te the !a$ses to psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity than to st$&&orn

re%$sal. 4enseless and protra!ted re%$sal is e5$ivalent to psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity. Th$s,

the prolonged re%$sal o% a spo$se to have se$al inter!o$rse with his or her spo$se is

!onsidered a sign o% psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity.

6vidently, one o% the essential marital o&ligations $nder the )amily Code is 7Topro!reate !hildren &ased on the $niversal prin!iple that pro!reation o% !hildren thro$gh

se$al !ooperation is the &asi! end o% marriage. Constant non%$l(llment o% this

o&ligation will (nally destroy the integrity or wholeness o% the marriage. 0n the !ase at

&ar, the senseless and protra!ted re%$sal o% one o% the parties to %$l(ll the a&ove marital

o&ligation is e5$ivalent to psy!hologi!al in!apa!ity.

http://mycasedigests.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/chi-ming-tsoi-vs-ca/#respondhttp://mycasedigests.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/chi-ming-tsoi-vs-ca/#respond

8/12/2019 Casedigest(Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA 266 Scra 324 (1997))

2/2

:hile the law provides that the h$s&and and the wi%e are o&liged to live together,

o&serve m$t$al love, respe!t and (delity. +rt. ;8, )amily Code, the san!tion there%or is

a!t$ally the 7spontaneo$s, m$t$al a