Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA

GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997

FACTS:

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding, they proceed to the
house of defendants mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them during their first night and same thing
happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but
Ginas relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long
walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept
together in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical
examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine
prescribed. There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status
here in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the
ground of psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled
because he loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and
since their relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to
another physical examination and the result was there is not evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.

ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological incapacity.
HELD:

The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality
disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.

If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital obligations and the
refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to
stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children
thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.

THE FACTS

Sometime in 1988, at the lovely Manila Cathedral, Chi Ming Tsoi married Gina Lao. The wedding ceremony was
followed by the wedding reception, which was held in South Villa, Makati. After a long day, the newlyweds went
straight to their room, lied down in a single bed and spent the first night of their married life together.

Nothing happened.

Chi Ming Tsoi went to bed, turned his back on his wife and slept the whole night. The same thing happened on the
second night, and the third, and the fourth. In fact, a week passed and the couple never consummated their marriage
(this is the legal term for having sex, doing the deed, humping the bump you know what I mean).

At the end of that week, the newlyweds went to Baguio City for their honeymoon. Gina Lao-Tsoi expected a romantic
weekend where she and her husband would spend the whole time together as a loving couple. Chi Ming Tsoi also
planned to have a great time during this honeymoon. But he wanted to spend it with his entire family. Thus, instead of
spending this weekend alone with his wife, he brought along his mother, his uncle and his nephew. At nights, he
would take long walks alone and, afterwards, sleep in a rocking chair in the living room while his wife slept by herself
in the bedroom.

Nothing happened during their honeymoon. Again, they never consummated their marriage.

A year has passed. Gina Lao-Tsoi remained a virgin. In fact, despite being married for a year, Gina had never even
seen Chi Ming Tsois little friend.

Distraught, disappointed, frustrated and probably a little bit horny, Chi Ming Tsois wife filed a Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage. According to her, his husband was psychologically incapacitated to perform his basic marital
obligations. Gina Lao-Tsoi claimed that Chi Ming Tsois failure to do the deed is due to the fact that he was probably
impotent. She wasnt sure because, as mentioned, soft or hard, she had not yet seen Chi Ming Tsois one-eyed
snake.
Chi Ming Tsoi vehemently denied his wifes allegation. To refute her claim, Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to
physical examination. In front of a medical doctor, he stroked his lizard and proved that his little friend can stand on
his own. In its Decision, the Supreme Court took note of this. Verbatim, this is the Courts statement on the matter:
The defendant submitted himself to a physical examination. His penis was examined by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr., for the
purpose of finding out whether he is impotent. As a result thereof, Dr. Alteza submitted his Doctors Medical Report. It
is stated there, that there is no evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.

The doctor said, that he asked the defendant to masturbate to find out whether or not he has an erection and he
found out that from the original size of two (2) inches, or five (5) centimeters, the penis of the defendant lengthened
by one (1) inch and one centimeter. Dr. Alteza said, that the defendant had only a soft erection which is why his penis
is not in its full length. But, still is capable of further erection, in that with his soft erection, the defendant is capable of
having sexual intercourse with a woman.
 WHY THE CASE IS UNFORGETTABLE

In his attempt to prove that he was not impotent, Chi Ming Tsoi was clearly successful. The Supreme Court was
convinced that his little friend could surely rise up to the occasion. But he probably forgot that court proceedings are
public in nature. In his enthusiasm to refute his wifes allegation of impotency, he also announced to the whole world
that his little friend is indeed a little friend.

Henceforth, the length of Chi Ming Tsois phallus was forever inscribed in the annals of legal scripture. In fact, this
would be an interesting question for the bar exams. What is the size of Chi Ming Tsois penis? Definitely, all bar
examinees will be able answer this question perfectly 2 inches or 5 centimeters while soft and it lengthens by 1
inch and 1 centimeter during a soft erection.

THE LEGAL DOCTRINE

Believe it or not, this is a very important legal case. In fact, it is a landmark case because it laid down an important
legal doctrine. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that refusal of one party to consummate the marriage is a sign of
psychological incapacity and hence, a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage. Indeed, the Supreme Court
declared the marriage between Chi Ming Tsoi and his wife as null and void. Since it was proven that Chi Ming Tsoi
was not impotent, it was clear that he simply refused to have sex with his wife. Thus, according the Supreme Court:

If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and
the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity
than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the
prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological
incapacity.

Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children based on the
universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage. Constant
non- fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the
senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to
psychological incapacity.

This case is also remembered for its definition of love and marriage. In its final statements, Justice Torres stated:

While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, the sanction therefor is actually the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any
legal mandate or court order. Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the
cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say I could not have cared less. This is so because an ungiven self is an
unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses
wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which
enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.

Isnt it beautiful? Its a pity that this wonderful statement is overshadowed by the statement of facts. Instead of
remembering this case for its important legal implications and its lovely definition of love and marriage, it is most
remembered for its definition of Chi Ming Tsois penis.