March 26, 2020

Mrs. Virginia D. Chinurva

Pangantucan, Bukidnon

Dear Mrs. Chinurva,

Here is the opinion you asked for regarding your request to annul your
marriage. The facts gathered from you are as follows:
You are married to a certain, Chuy T. Chinurva on June 8, 2019 at the
Malaybalay Cathedral. After the celebration of your marriage and reception at the
Loiza’s Pavillion, Casisang Malaybalay City, you proceeded to the house of Chuy T
Chinurva’s mother. You slept together on the same bed for the first night of your
married life. Contrary to your expectations, that as newlyweds you were supposed
to enjoy making love, or having sexual intercourse, with each other, Chuy T.
Chirnurva just went to bed, slept on one side thereof, then turned his back and went
to sleep. There was no sexual intercourse between you and your husband during the
first night. The same thing happened on the second, third and fourth nights.
In an effort to have your honeymoon in a private place where you can enjoy
together during your first week as husband and wife, you went to Dahilayan,
Manolo Fortich. You stayed in Dahilayan for four (4) days. But, during this period,
there was no sexual intercourse between you and your husband, since Chuy T.
Chirnurva avoided you by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping
on a rocking chair located at the living room. You slept together in the same room
and on the same bed since June 8, 2019 until March 23, 2020. But during this period,
there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between you and Chuy T. Chirnurva.
You also claim, that you did not even see Chuy T. Chirnurva's private parts nor did
he see yours.
You and Chuy T. Chirnurva both submitted yourselves for medical
examinations to Dr. Heherson D. Cui, a urologist at the Valencia Sanitarium
Hospital, on December 20, 2019. The results of your physical examinations were that
you are healthy, normal and still a virgin, while that of Chuy T. Chirnurva’s
examination was kept confidential up to this time. While no medicine was
prescribed for you, the doctor prescribed medications for your husband which was
also kept confidential. No treatment was given to you. For your husband, he was
asked by the doctor to return but he never did.
You claim, that the Chuy T. Chirnurva is impotent, a closet homosexual as he
did not show his penis. You have observed Chuy T. Chirnurva using an eyebrow
pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. And that Chuy T.
Chirnurva married you to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man.
It is stated in Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines that a marriage
contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization. We can prove that Chuy T. Chirnurva did not have sexual relations
with you after almost ten months of cohabitation, and if we can prove that he is not
suffering from any physical disability. Then such abnormal reluctance or
unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious
personality disorder which to the mind of this Court clearly demonstrates an 'utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage' within the
meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code (See Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
112019, January 4, 1995).
if your husband would claim that the reason is not psychological but perhaps
physical disorder on his part, it would become incumbent upon him to prove such a
claim.
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 (See Tsi Ming Tsoi vs CA,
G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997).
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
your case, the senseless and protracted refusal of Chuy T. Chirnurva to fulfill the
above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Please be reminded that this opinion is based on the law and based solely on
the facts you have provided.
Do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. It was a pleasure
meeting you and I look forward to your call.

Most Sincerely,

Sgd. JOVAN B. GASCON

Attorney
0917 565 5359