Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (1997): Refusal of Intimacy

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi married in 1988. From the wedding until they separated the following year, they slept in the same bed for almost ten months but never had sexual relations. Each spouse blamed the other. A medical report showed that the husband had no physical disability that prevented sexual relations.

The wife asked the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to declare the marriage void. The court declared it void on the ground of psychological incapacity, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The husband, who said he did not want the marriage annulled, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The husband argued that there was no independent proof of the lack of sexual relations, that the spouses may have colluded, and that a refusal to have sex was not shown to come from a psychological disorder. Was the marriage properly declared void under Article 36?

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals in all respects.

No collusion. The Court said: "The case has reached this Court because petitioner does not want their marriage to be annulled. This only shows that there is no collusion between the parties." The decision was based on testimony given in court and tested on cross-examination, not on a stipulation of facts.

Who refused does not matter. The lower courts did not find which spouse refused. The Court said that "since the action to declare the marriage void may be filed by either party, i.e., even the psychologically incapacitated, the question of who refuses to have sex with the other becomes immaterial."

Refusal as incapacity. The Court said one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children through sexual cooperation, and that constant non-fulfillment of this obligation "will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage." It held that "the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity." It adopted the view that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual relations "is considered a sign of psychological incapacity."

What a court cannot order. The Court noted that under Article 68 of the Family Code husband and wife are obliged to live together and observe mutual love, respect and fidelity. But the sanction for this, it said, is the "spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order."

The senseless and protracted refusal of a spouse to have sexual relations with the other, when the spouse is physically capable, is equivalent to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code; since either spouse may file, it does not matter which spouse refused.

Chi Ming Tsoi is often cited on Article 36. It shows that psychological incapacity can be shown by conduct during the marriage, here a long refusal of intimacy without a physical cause, and not only by a medical diagnosis.

It was decided weeks before Republic v. Molina, which set the strict guidelines courts followed for more than 20 years. In 2021, Tan-Andal v. Andal restated the test for psychological incapacity. Any new case is decided under the current test: see psychological incapacity after Tan-Andal.

Made-up illustration: Rina and Paolo have been married for a year and have never been intimate. Paolo has no medical problem and gives no reason. Rina's petition under Article 36 would point to Chi Ming Tsoi, but the court would still weigh all the evidence under the current test.

Read the full decision on the Supreme Court E-Library (link in the sources below). For a case on the validity of a marriage, see where to find legal help.