Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao were married at the Manila Cathedral in May 1988. Like many newlyweds, they began their married life under the same roof and slept in the same bed.

But there was a problem. There was no sex.

According to Gina, her husband simply turned his back and went to sleep on their wedding night. The same thing happened on the second night. Then the third. Then the fourth.

Hoping that a change of scenery would help, the couple went to Baguio for their honeymoon. Instead of spending time alone, however, Chi Ming invited several relatives to join them. Even during the trip, the marriage remained unconsummated.

Months passed. The couple continued sharing the same bedroom and the same bed, yet they never had sexual intercourse. Concerned, they consulted a urologist.

Gina was found to be physically healthy and still a virgin. Chi Ming was prescribed medication and instructed to return for further treatment, but he never did. Eventually, Gina filed a petition to declare their marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Chi Ming opposed the petition. He insisted that he loved his wife, that he was physically capable of sexual intercourse, and that any problems in their marriage could still be resolved. He even underwent a medical examination, which showed that he was not physically impotent and was capable of erection.

Could a marriage really be declared void simply because it was never consummated?

The Supreme Court answered with an important qualification. The Court explained that the absence of sexual intercourse, by itself, does not automatically render a marriage void.

However, the facts of this case showed something far more serious. For almost ten months, despite living together as husband and wife, the parties never consummated their marriage. Neither spouse demonstrated any meaningful effort to resolve the situation. The Court found that this prolonged and senseless refusal to perform one of the essential obligations of marriage revealed a deep-seated psychological condition rather than a mere temporary disagreement.

The Supreme Court emphasized that one of the fundamental obligations of marriage is the mutual sharing of married life, including sexual intimacy directed toward the possibility of procreation. According to the Court, when a spouse is physically capable of sexual relations but persistently and unjustifiably refuses to perform this essential marital obligation, such refusal may be evidence of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The Court also observed that marriage is more than living under one roof. It requires mutual love, empathy, commitment, and the willingness to share oneself with one’s spouse. In the Court’s words, “the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say, ‘I could not have cared less.'” A spouse’s complete inability to give meaning and significance to the marital relationship may demonstrate the psychological incapacity contemplated by law.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the declaration that the marriage was void. The Court held that the prolonged and unjustified failure to consummate the marriage, under the particular facts of the case, constituted psychological incapacity sufficient to render the marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Chi Ming Tsoi v. Lao-Tsoi. G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997