Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA

Gina Lao-Tsoi married Chi Ming Tsoi on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral. From the wedding night until their separation on March 15, 1989, the couple slept in the same bed but never had sexual intercourse. During a four-day "honeymoon" in Baguio, attended by relatives Chi Ming Tsoi had invited, he avoided her by taking long walks or sleeping in a rocking chair. A urologist found Gina healthy and still a virgin; Chi Ming Tsoi's results were kept confidential, and he did not return to the doctor as asked. Gina sued in the RTC of Quezon City for declaration of nullity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Chi Ming Tsoi admitted there was no sexual contact but blamed his wife, saying she avoided him. He presented a medical report finding no evidence of impotency. The trial prosecutor manifested there was no collusion. The RTC declared the marriage void, and the Court of Appeals affirmed and denied reconsideration. Chi Ming Tsoi petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the judgment rested on the parties' admissions, that there was no proof of psychological incapacity, and that collusion had not been ruled out.

1. 1Whether the nullity judgment was improperly based on the parties' admissions, contrary to the rule that the material facts in annulment cases must always be proved.
2. 2Whether the senseless and protracted refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse constitutes psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.

No to the first; yes to the second. Petition denied. Sec. 1, Rule 19 requires that material facts in annulment cases always be proved, to prevent annulment without trial; the Civil Code (Arts. 88 and 101) bars annulment on a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. The judgment here was not a judgment on the pleadings. Gina testified under oath and was cross-examined, and only then did Chi Ming Tsoi admit that there had been no intercourse. His vigorous opposition to the petition all the way to the Supreme Court showed there was no collusion. Who refused whom was immaterial, since either spouse, even the incapacitated one, may file the action. The fact remained that there had never been coitus. Chi Ming Tsoi, who was shown to be physically capable, never tried to find out why his wife supposedly balked, and he did not prove his claim that her refusal came from a physical disorder. One essential marital obligation under the Family Code is to procreate children through sexual cooperation. Quoting a commentator, the Court held: "Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity." It adopted the CA's finding that the husband's unexplained reluctance after almost ten months of cohabitation, with no physical disability, was "indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder." Although Art. 68 obliges the spouses to live together and observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, its real sanction is spontaneous mutual affection, not a court order. The Court of Appeals decision of November 29, 1994 was affirmed in all respects.