Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:

Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997, Supreme Court Second Division, Torres, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The Court rendered judgment affirming the Court of Appeals and denying the petition.

The parties were husband Chi Ming Tsoi (petitioner) and wife Gina Lao-Tsoi (private respondent). The spouses were married on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral. After the wedding the couple cohabited until March 15, 1989, but, according to the trial record, there was no sexual intercourse during that period. The wife filed an action in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 89) seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.

At trial the wife testified that the husband never consummated the marriage, that she remained a virgin, and that she observed behaviors in the husband (use of cosmetics of his mother) that led her to suspect closet homosexuality and that the marriage was contracted to secure the husband’s residency. She submitted to a medical examination by Dr. Eufemio Macalalag (urologist) on January 20, 1989; the doctor found her healthy and still a virgin. The husband submitted to a physical examination by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr., whose report indicated no evidence of impotence and that the husband was capable of erection (a soft erection but sufficient for intercourse). The trial prosecutor manifested in court that there was no collusion between the parties.

The RTC (Branch 89, Quezon City) rendered judgment annulling the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity and ordered the record copies furnished to the local civil registrars. The Court of Appeals’ Thirteenth Division (Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, J., ponente; Eduardo Montenegro and Antonio P. Solano, JJ., concurring) affirmed the RTC in a decision dated November 29, 1994, and denied the husband’s motion for reconsideration by resolution dated February 14, 1995. The husband then filed the present petition to the Supreme Court contesting the Court of Appeals’ affirmance.

Petitioner raised four principal assignments of error alleging (1) the CA affirmed the finding of non-coitus without making proper findings of fact; (2) the CA erred in treating the wife’s refusal to have sexual relations as psycho...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s finding that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making explicit findings of fact?
• Can a prolonged refusal to have sexual intercourse constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code in the absence of direct psychiatric diagnosis or other specialized proof?
• Is the question of which spouse was psychologically incapacitated material where both parties allegedly refused conjugal relations?
• Did the courts below err in annulling the marriage without...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)