Today is Wechnesday, September 27,2028, + \The LAWPHIL Project PHILIPPINE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE DATABANK Republic ofthe Philippines ‘SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION GR. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 (CHI MING TSOI, pettoner, ‘COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents TORRES, JR, J. ‘Man has not Invented a reliable compass by which to steer a marriage In its Journey over troubled water, Laws are seemingly inadequate. Over time, much reliance has been placed in the works of the unseen hand of Him who created all things Who isto blame when a marriage fais? This case was originally commenced by a distraught wife against her uncaring husband in the Regional Trial Court, cof Quezon City (Branen &9) which decreed the annulment of the mariage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Potitoner appeatod the decision of the bial court to respondent Court of Appoals (CA-G.R. CV No. 42758) which fafirmed the Tral Cour’'s decsion November 23, 1994 and correspondinly denied the motion for reconsideration In resolution dated February 14, 1995, ‘The slatoment of the case and of the facts made by the thal cour and reproduced by the Court of Appeals’ is seeision are as follows From the evidence adéuced, the folowing acts were preponderantly established! Sometime on May 22, 1988, the plant marred the defendant at the Manila Cathedral, .. Inramuros Manila, s evidenced by their Mariage Contract. (Exh. "A")[After tho celebration of their marriage and wedting reception at the South Vila, Makati, they went and proceeded tothe house of defendant's mother. “Thera, they slept together onthe same bed in the same room for he frst night oftheir marred if, Itis the version ofthe paint, that contrary to her expectations, that as newlyweds they were supposed to enjoy making ave, or having sexual intercourse, with each other, the defendant just went to bed, slept on one side thereot, then turned his back and went fo sleep . There was no sexual intercourse between them during the frst night. The same thing happened an the second, third and fourth nights, In an effort to have their honeymoon ina private place where they can enjoy together during thir fst wook 1 husband and wife, they went to Baguio Cty. But, they did 30 together with her mother, an uncle, his mother and his nephew. They were all sited by the defendant to oin them. [They stayed in Baguio Cty for four (4) 4ays. But, during this period, nere was no sexual intercourse between them, sine the defendant avoided her by taking along walk during siesta Ume or by ust sleeping on a rocking chair located at the ling room. They Slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22, 1988 untl March 15, 1989. But during this period, there was no allempl of sexual intercourse Between ther, [S]he claims, that she did not even see her husband's prvate pats nor did he see hers. Because ofthis, they submited themselves for madical examinations to Or. Eufemio Macalalag, a urologit at the Chinese General Hospital, on January 20, 1988 ‘The results of ther physical examinations were that she is healthy, normal and sila virgin, while that of her husband's examination was kept confidental upto this time, While no medicine was prescribed for her, the octor prescribed macications for har husband which was also Kop! confidential No treatment was given to het. Forher husband, he was asked by the doctor to return but he never di ‘The plant claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not show his penis. She said, thal she had observed the defendant using an eyebrow pencl and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. And that, according ta her, the defendant married her, a Filipina cttzen, to acquire or maintain his Fesidency status here in the country and to publly maintain the appearance of a normal man. “The plaints not wiling to reconcile with her husband, On the other hand, itis the claim of the defendant that their marriage shall be annulled by reason of psychological incapacity, the fault ies with his wife. But, ho said that ho doos not want his mariage with his wife annulled for several roasons, vz: (1) that he loves her very much; (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is physicaly and psychologically capaole; and, (3) ince the relationships sil vary young and if there is any diferences between the two of them, ican Stil be reconciled and that, according to him, feiher one of them has soma incapablties, there is no Certainty that thes wil nat be cured. He futher claims, that there is any defect, i can be cured by the intervention of medial technology or science. “The defendant admitted that since their mariage on May 22, 1988, uni their separation on March 15, 1988, there was na sexual contact between them. But, the reason for this, according to the devendant, was that everytime he wanis to have sexual inlercourse with hs wile, sho always avoided him and whenever hecarossas her private parts, she always removed his hands. The defendant claims, that he forced his wife to hhave sox with him only once but he dé nat continue because she was shaking and she gis not Ike i So he stopped: ‘There ave wo (2) reasons, according to the defendant, why the pain fled this case against him, and these are: (1) that she i fra that she wil be forced fo retum tne pieces of jewelry of his mother, and, (2) that her husband, the defendant, wil consummate thei marriage, “The defendant insisted thet their marrage will remain valid because they ae sil vry young and there is stil a chance to overcome toi differences “The defendant submited himself o a physical examination. His penis was examined by Or. Sergio Ateza, Jt, for the purpose of finding out whether he is impotent AS a result Hreeat, Dr. Alteza submitted his Doctor's Medical Repor. (Exh. "2 Its stated there, that there is no evidence of impoteney (Exh. "2-B"), and ne is capable of erocton. (Exh. "2-C") “The doctor sale, that he asked the defendant to masturbate fo find out whether or not he has an erection and he found out that for the original size of two (2) inches, of fv (8) conlmotes, the pens of the defendant lengthened by one (1) inch and one centimeter. Dr. Ateza said, thatthe defendant had only a soft erection which fs why fis ponis is nat in is full length. But, sil 's capablo of futher erection, in thal with his soft erection, the defendant capable of having sexual intercourse with a woman, In open Cour, the Tial Prosecutor manifested tat there is no callsion between the parties and that the evidence isnot fabricated.” ‘Alor tal the cout rendored judgment, the d'spositive portion of which roads: ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby renderad declaring as VOID the marriage entered into by the plantit With the defendant on May 22. 1986 at the Manila Cathodral, Basiica of the Immaculata Conception, Intramuros, Manila, before the Ri. Rev. Msgr. Melencio de Vera. Without costs. Let a copy ofthis decision be furnished the Local Civil Regstar of Quezon Cty. Let another copy be funished the Local Civil Registrar of Mani SO ORDERED. (On appeal the Court of Appeals afrmed the tal courts decision Hence, the instant petition Pettioner alleges thatthe respondent Court of Appeals erred 1 In affirming the conclusions of the lower court that the ‘without making any finaings of fact. was no sexual inlorcourse between the partesin holding that the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with pettioner is a psychological incapacity nasmuch as proof thereof totaly absont in holding that the alleged refusal of both the petitoner and the private respondent to have sex with each ‘ther canstites psychological incapacity ofboth v in affirming the annulment of the mariage between the parties decreed by the lower court without fully Satisfying self that there was no collusion between them We find the petition tobe beret of mer Petitioner cantends that being the plant in Civil Case No, Q-89-9141, private respondent has the burden of proving the allegatons in her complain. that since there was no independent evidence to prove the alleged non tottus between the parties, thee remains no other basis for the courts conclision except the admission of Pettioner; that puble poley should aid acts intended to validate mariage and should retard acts intended to Irvalidate them; thatthe conclusion drawn by the trial court on the admissions and confessions of the parties in their Pleadings and! in tho course of the tral is misplaced since it could have boen a product of collision; and that In Actions for annulment of mariage, the materia acs alleged in the complaint sal always be proved,” Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court rt Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. — Where an answor fils to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations ofthe adverse pariy’s pleading, the court may, on moton of that party, cree judgment on Such pleading. Butin actos for annulment of mariage ofr legal soparation the material facts alleged in the complaint shal always be proved. ‘The foregoing provision pertain fo a judgment on the pleadings. Wal sald provsion secks to prevent is annulmant cof marriage without tral, The assailed decision was nol based on such a judgment onthe pleadings, When private respondent tetfied under oath before the tril court and was cross-examined By oath before the tral court and was ‘ross-examined by the adverse paty, she thereby presented evidence inform of a testimony. After such evidence: was presented, it be came incumbent upon petitioner to present his si. He admitted that since their mariage on May 22, 1988, unt their separation on March 15, 1969, there was no sexual intercourse between them, To prevent coluson between the partes isthe reason why, as stated by the patitoner, the Civil Code provides that no judgment annuling a mariage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment (Ais. 68 and 10'[par. 2) and the Rules of Court pranibt such annulment without tal (See. 1, Rule 19). The case has reached ths Court because petitoner does not want thelr mariage to be annulled. This only shows, that thee is no colusion between the pares. When petitioner admited that he and his wife (private respondent) have never had sexual contact with each other, he must have been only toling the truth, We are repraducng the felevant orion of the challenged resolution denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, penned with ‘magisterial lucdty by Associate Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, viz‘The judgmont ofthe tial court which was affimed by this Cour is not based on a stipulation of facts. The Issue of whethor or not te appellant is psychologically incapactated to eischarge a basic martial obligation \was resolved upon a review of aoth the documeniary and testimonial evidence on record. Appellant admitted ‘that he did not have soxval relations with his wife after almost ten months of cohabitation, and t appears that he is not suffering rom any physical dsabiity. Such abnormal rluctance or unvilingness to consummate his marrage is strongly indicatve of a serious personaity disorder which to the mind of this Court clearly emorsiates an utter insensitivity or iabilly to give mearing and significance to the marrage’ wihin the meaning of Anicle 36 of the Family Code (See Santos vs. Coutt of Appeals, GR. No. 112018, January 4 1995)" Petitioner further contends that respondent court ered in holding that the allege refusal of both tne pettoner ana th private respondent to have sex with each other constiules psychological incapacity of both. He points out as ‘error the failure of the tal court to make a categorical finding about the alleged psychological incapacty ard an in- opin analysis of the reasons for such rusal which may nol be necessarly due Io physchological dsorders" because there might have been other reasons, — e., physical eisordes, such a8 aches, pains or other discomtor', why private respondent would not want fo have sexual intercourse from May 22, 1988 to March 18, 1989, in 8 ‘short span of 10 months. Fra, it must be stated that nether the trial court nr the respondent court made a finding on who betwaen petitioner and private respondent refuses to nave sexual contact with the other The fact remains, however, that there nas never boen coitus between them. At any ral, since the action lo declare the mariage void may be fled by either party, /., even the psychologcaly incapacitated, the question of who refuses to have sex with the other becomes. fromatera Ptioner elains that there is no independent evidence on record to show that any ofthe parties is suffering trom phycholosical incapacity. Peitaner also claims that he wanted fo have sex with private respondent; thatthe reason for prvate respondents refusal may not be psychological but physical aisorde as stated above \We do not agree. Assuming ito be 0, petitoner could have discussed with private respondent or asked her what is ailing her, and wiy she balks and avoids him everyime he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. He never Gi. At eas, there is nothing in the record to show that he had ted to find out or discover what the problem wih his wife could be. What he presented in evidence is his doctor's Medical Report that there is no evidence of his Impotency and he is capable of erecion.° Since i is petlioner’s claim that the reason is not psychological but pemhape physical csoraer on the pat of private responder, became Incumbent upon hi to prave such a lai, Hf a spouse, though physicaly capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential mariage cblgatone, and the refusal is eanseless and constant, Catholic marrage tribunals atiibule the causes to psyenological incapacity than to stubbom refusal. Senesless ond protracted refusal fs equivalent to psyenologial incapacty, Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have eexual intercourse wih his oF her spouse Is considered a sign of psychological incapacity Evidently, one of the essential marital oblgations 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 on. fufment ofthis obligation wil rally destroy the integrity or wholeness ofthe marriage. In the case at bar, the Senseless and protracted rafusal of one of the parties to fulfil the above marital obligation is equivalart fo psychological incapacity‘As aplly stated by the respondent court, ‘An examination of the evidence convinces Us that the husband's plea thatthe wife did not want camal intercourse with him does rat inspire belief. Since he was not physical impotent, but he refrained fom sexual intercourse duting the entre time (om May 22, 1988 fo March 16, 1988) tha he occupied te same bed with his wife, purely out of symphaty for her feetings, ne deserves ‘o be doubled for nat having asserted his right seven though she balked (Tompkins vs. Tompkins, 111 At. 598, lod in| Paras, Civil Code, at p. 330). Besides, it were true that isthe wife was suffering from Incapacity, the fact that defendant oid not go {a court and Seek the declaration of nully weakens his claim. This case was insttuted by the wife whose normal expeclations of her mariage were frustrated by her husband's inadequacy. Consiering the innate modesty of the Fipino woman, Iti hard to beleve thal she would expase her private ie to public scriy {and fabricate testimony against er husband i were not necessary ta put her fein order and'pu to rest het marital status, We are not impressed by defendants claim that what the evidence proved isthe unwilingness or lack of intenton ta perlrm the eexual act, which ie not phychelogical Incapacity, and which can be achieved “ough proper matwaton.” Afr almost ten months of cahabitabon, the admission thatthe husband is reluctant or Unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife whom he professes to love very dearly, and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches, is indicative of @ hopeless situation, and of 2 Serious personally disorder that constitutes psychological incapacity to discharge the basic martal covenants within the contemplation of tie Family Code." While the law provides thatthe husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fieliy (Ar. 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually Ine "spontaneous, mutual ffecton between husband and wie ard not any legal mandate or court order" (Cuademo vs. Cuadermo 120 Phi. 1288). Love i useless unless itis shared wih another. Indoed, ro man isan island, the cuelest act ofa pariner in marriage Isto say "I could not have cared less." This so because an ungiven selfs an unfulfilled se. The egotst has nothing but himselt. nthe natural order, is sexual inimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is agi and & Partcipation in the mystery of creation. Its a function which enlvens the hope of procreation and ensures the ontintation of family relations I appears that there is absence of empathy between petttoner and private respondent. That is — a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only ty having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep Sense of spirtual communion. Maral union fsa two-way process. An expressive Interest in each other's feelings at ‘time its needed by the ater can go along way in deepening the martalrelaionship. Marriage is defintely not for children but fortwo consenting aduls who view the relationship with love amor ggnt amorem, respect, sactlice ana ' cantnuing commitment lo compromise, conscious of value as 2 sublime socal institution, ‘This Cour, finding the gravity ofthe fallod rlatonship in which the partes found thomscWves trapped in is miro of Lnfufiled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the stucied judgment of respondent appollats court. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES , the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 28, 1904 ig heroay AFFIRMED in all respects and ine petion is hereby DENIED for lack of mer 80 ORDERED.Regalado, Romero, Puno ard Mendozs, J, concur. Footnotes, {Thiteentn Division: Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, J., ponente, Eduardo G. Montenegro and Antonio P. Solano, J. concurring 2 Rollo, pp. 20-24 3 4 Roll, p. 34 5 Exh. "2", "2-B" and "2-C", 6 Psychological Incapaciy, 6. Voloso,p. 20, ciod in The Family Code ofthe Philippines Annotated, Pineda, 1989 ed, p.51 7 Decision, pp. 11-12; Rll, pp. 30-3 ro