G.R. No. 119190 - Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals

Chi Ming Tsoi, petitioner, appealed from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 89) and from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 42758.
Gina Lao-Tsoi, respondent, instituted Civil Case No. Q-89-3141 for annulment of the parties' marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
The trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void; the Court of Appeals affirmed on November 29, 1994 and denied reconsideration on February 14, 1995; petitioner filed the present petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 119190).

The parties were married on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila, as shown by their marriage contract (Exh. "A").
The parties slept in the same room and same bed from the wedding night but there was no sexual intercourse on the first, second, third, and fourth nights.
The couple went to Baguio for their honeymoon in the company of family members and again there was no sexual intercourse during their four-day stay; petitioner avoided private moments by taking walks or sleeping in a rocking chair.
The parties cohabited in the same bed from May 22, 1988 until their separation on March 15, 1989 without any attempt at sexual intercourse; the wife claimed she never saw petitioner's private parts and he never saw hers.
Both parties submitted to medical examinations at the Chinese General Hospital on January 20, 1989; the wife's examination showed she was healthy, normal, and still a virgin; the husband's examination and prescribed medications were kept confidential and he did not return for follow-up.
The wife alleged that petitioner was impotent and a closet homosexual, and that he married her to secure or maintain residency and to present the appearance of a normal man.
Petitioner denied psychological incapacity, claimed love for his wife, asserted physical and psychological capability, and argue...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming findings that there was no sexual intercourse between the parties without making independent findings of fact.
Whether the courts erred in holding that the wife's refusal to have sexual communion constituted *psychological incapacity* in the absence of proof.
Whether the courts erred in treating the alleged refusal of both parties to have sex as establishing psychological incapacity of both spouses.
Whether the Court of Appeals improperly affirmed annulment without satisfactorily ensuring absence of collusion between the parties.

Petitioner contended the wife, as plaintiff, bore the burden of proving the complaint and that the absence of independent evidence makes the judgment rest solely on petitioner's admissions.
Petitioner argued public policy favored validating marriages ...(Subscriber-Only)