Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS an GINA LAO!TSOI, respondents.

TORRES, JR., J.:
Man has not invented a reliable copass b! "hich to steer a arria#e in its $ourne! over troubled "aters. %a"s are
seein#l! inade&uate. Over tie, uch reliance has been placed in the "or's of the unseen hand of (i "ho
created all thin#s.
)ho is to blae "hen a arria#e fails*
+his case "as ori#inall! coenced b! a distrau#ht "ife a#ainst her uncarin# husband in the Re#ional +rial Court of
,ue-on Cit! ./ranch 012 "hich decreed the annulent of the arria#e on the #round of ps!cholo#ical incapacit!.
Petitioner appealed the decision of the trial court to respondent Court of 3ppeals .C345.R. CV No. 678902 "hich
affired the +rial Court:s decision Noveber 71, ;116 and correspondin#l! denied the otion for reconsideration in a
resolution dated <ebruar! ;6, ;119.
+he stateent of the case and of the facts ade b! the trial court and reproduced b! the Court of 3ppeals
1
its
decision are as follo"s=
<ro the evidence adduced, the follo"in# acts "ere preponderantl! established=
Soetie on Ma! 77, ;100, the plaintiff arried the defendant at the Manila Cathedral, . . . Intrauros
Manila, as evidenced b! their Marria#e Contract. .E>h. ?3?2
3fter the celebration of their arria#e and "eddin# reception at the South Villa, Ma'ati, the! "ent and
proceeded to the house of defendant:s other.
+here, the! slept to#ether on the sae bed in the sae roo for the first ni#ht of their arried life.
It is the version of the plaintiff, that contrar! to her e>pectations, that as ne"l!"eds the! "ere supposed to
en$o! a'in# love, or havin# se>ual intercourse, "ith each other, the defendant $ust "ent to bed, slept on
one side thereof, then turned his bac' and "ent to sleep . +here "as no se>ual intercourse bet"een the
durin# the first ni#ht. +he sae thin# happened on the second, third and fourth ni#hts.
In an effort to have their hone!oon in a private place "here the! can en$o! to#ether durin# their first "ee'
as husband and "ife, the! "ent to /a#uio Cit!. /ut, the! did so to#ether "ith her other, an uncle, his
other and his nephe". +he! "ere all invited b! the defendant to $oin the. @+Ahe! sta!ed in /a#uio Cit! for
four .62 da!s. /ut, durin# this period, there "as no se>ual intercourse bet"een the, since the defendant
avoided her b! ta'in# a lon# "al' durin# siesta tie or b! $ust sleepin# on a roc'in# chair located at the
livin# roo. +he! slept to#ether in the sae roo and on the sae bed since Ma! 77, ;100 until March ;9,
;101. /ut durin# this period, there "as no attept of se>ual intercourse bet"een the. @SAhe clais, that
she did not= even see her husband:s private parts nor did he see hers.
/ecause of this, the! subitted theselves for edical e>ainations to Dr. Eufeio Macalala#, a urolo#ist
at the Chinese 5eneral (ospital, on Banuar! 7C, ;101.
+he results of their ph!sical e>ainations "ere that she is health!, noral and still a vir#in, "hile that of her
husband:s e>aination "as 'ept confidential up to this tie. )hile no edicine "as prescribed for her, the
doctor prescribed edications for her husband "hich "as also 'ept confidential. No treatent "as #iven to
her. <or her husband, he "as as'ed b! the doctor to return but he never did.
+he plaintiff clais, that the defendant is ipotent, a closet hoose>ual as he did not sho" his penis. She
said, that she had observed the defendant usin# an e!ebro" pencil and soeties the cleansin# crea of
his other. 3nd that, accordin# to her, the defendant arried her, a <ilipino citi-en, to ac&uire or aintain his
residenc! status here in the countr! and to publicl! aintain the appearance of a noral an.
+he plaintiff is not "illin# to reconcile "ith her husband.
On the other hand, it is the clai of the defendant that if their arria#e shall be annulled b! reason of
ps!cholo#ical incapacit!, the fault lies "ith his "ife.
/ut, he said that he does not "ant his arria#e "ith his "ife annulled for several reasons, viz= .;2 that he
loves her ver! uchD .72 that he has no defect on his part and he is ph!sicall! and ps!cholo#icall! capableD
and, .E2 since the relationship is still ver! !oun# and if there is an! differences bet"een the t"o of the, it
can still be reconciled and that, accordin# to hi, if either one of the has soe incapabilities, there is no
certaint! that this "ill not be cured. (e further clais, that if there is an! defect, it can be cured b! the
intervention of edical technolo#! or science.
+he defendant aditted that since their arria#e on Ma! 77, ;100, until their separation on March ;9, ;101,
there "as no se>ual contact bet"een the. /ut, the reason for this, accordin# to the defendant, "as that
ever!tie he "ants to have se>ual intercourse "ith his "ife, she al"a!s avoided hi and "henever he
caresses her private parts, she al"a!s reoved his hands. +he defendant clais, that he forced his "ife to
have se> "ith hi onl! once but he did not continue because she "as sha'in# and she did not li'e it. So he
stopped.
+here are t"o .72 reasons, accordin# to the defendant , "h! the plaintiff filed this case a#ainst hi, and
these are= .;2 that she is afraid that she "ill be forced to return the pieces of $e"elr! of his other, and, .72
that her husband, the defendant, "ill consuate their arria#e.
+he defendant insisted that their arria#e "ill reain valid because the! are still ver! !oun# and there is still
a chance to overcoe their differences.
+he defendant subitted hiself to a ph!sical e>aination. (is penis "as e>ained b! Dr. Ser#io 3lte-a,
Br., for the purpose of findin# out "hether he is ipotent . 3s a result thereof, Dr. 3lte-a subitted his
Doctor:s Medical Report. .E>h. ?7?2. It is stated there, that there is no evidence of ipotenc! .E>h. ?74/?2,
and he is capable of erection. .E>h. ?74C?2
+he doctor said, that he as'ed the defendant to asturbate to find out "hether or not he has an erection
and he found out that fro the ori#inal si-e of t"o .72 inches, or five .92 centieters, the penis of the
defendant len#thened b! one .;2 inch and one centieter. Dr. 3lte-a said, that the defendant had onl! a soft
erection "hich is "h! his penis is not in its full len#th. /ut, still is capable of further erection, in that "ith his
soft erection, the defendant is capable of havin# se>ual intercourse "ith a "oan.
In open Court, the +rial Prosecutor anifested that there is no collusion bet"een the parties and
that the evidence is not fabricated.?
"
3fter trial, the court rendered $ud#ent, the dispositive portion of "hich reads=
3CCORDIN5%F, $ud#ent is hereb! rendered declarin# as VOID the arria#e entered into b! the plaintiff
"ith the defendant on Ma! 77, ;100 at the Manila Cathedral, /asilica of the Iaculate Conception,
Intrauros, Manila, before the Rt. Rev. Ms#r. Melencio de Vera. )ithout costs. %et a cop! of this decision be
furnished the %ocal Civil Re#istrar of ,ue-on Cit!. %et another cop! be furnished the %ocal Civil Re#istrar of
Manila.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, the Court of 3ppeals affired the trial court:s decision.
(ence, the instant petition.
Petitioner alle#es that the respondent Court of 3ppeals erred=
I
in affirin# the conclusions of the lo"er court that there "as no se>ual intercourse bet"een the parties
"ithout a'in# an! findin#s of fact.
II
in holdin# that the refusal of private respondent to have se>ual counion "ith petitioner is a ps!cholo#ical
incapacit! inasuch as proof thereof is totall! absent.
III
in holdin# that the alle#ed refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have se> "ith each
other constitutes ps!cholo#ical incapacit! of both.
IV
in affirin# the annulent of the arria#e bet"een the parties decreed b! the lo"er court "ithout full!
satisf!in# itself that there "as no collusion bet"een the.
)e find the petition to be bereft of erit.
Petitioner contends that bein# the plaintiff in Civil Case No. ,4014E;6;, private respondent has the burden of provin#
the alle#ations in her coplaintD that since there "as no independent evidence to prove the alle#ed non4coitus
bet"een the parties, there reains no other basis for the court:s conclusion e>cept the adission of petitionerD that
public polic! should aid acts intended to validate arria#e and should retard acts intended to invalidate theD that the
conclusion dra"n b! the trial court on the adissions and confessions of the parties in their pleadin#s and in the
course of the trial is isplaced since it could have been a product of collusionD and that in actions for annulent of
arria#e, the aterial facts alle#ed in the coplaint shall al"a!s be proved.
#
Section ;, Rule ;1 of the Rules of Court reads=
Section ;. Bud#ent on the pleadin#s. G )here an ans"er fails to tender an issue, or other"ise adits the
aterial alle#ations of the adverse part!:s pleadin#, the court a!, on otion of that part!, direct $ud#ent
on such pleadin#. /ut in actions for annulent of arria#e or for le#al separation the aterial facts alle#ed
in the coplaint shall al"a!s be proved.
+he fore#oin# provision pertains to a $ud#ent on the pleadin#s. )hat said provision see's to prevent is annulent
of arria#e "ithout trial. +he assailed decision "as not based on such a $ud#ent on the pleadin#s. )hen private
respondent testified under oath before the trial court and "as cross4e>ained b! oath before the trial court and "as
cross4e>ained b! the adverse part!, she thereb! presented evidence in for of a testion!. 3fter such evidence
"as presented, it be cae incubent upon petitioner to present his side. (e aditted that since their arria#e on
Ma! 77, ;100, until their separation on March ;9, ;101, there "as no se>ual intercourse bet"een the.
+o prevent collusion bet"een the parties is the reason "h!, as stated b! the petitioner, the Civil Code provides that no
$ud#ent annullin# a arria#e shall be proul#ated upon a stipulation of facts or b! confession of $ud#ent .3rts. 00
and ;C;@par. 7A2 and the Rules of Court prohibit such annulent "ithout trial .Sec. ;, Rule ;12.
+he case has reached this Court because petitioner does not "ant their arria#e to be annulled. +his onl! sho"s
that there is no collusion bet"een the parties. )hen petitioner aditted that he and his "ife .private respondent2
have never had se>ual contact "ith each other, he ust have been onl! tellin# the truth. )e are reproducin# the
relevant portion of the challen#ed resolution den!in# petitioner:s Motion for Reconsideration, penned "ith a#isterial
lucidit! b! 3ssociate Bustice Minerva 5on-a#a4Re!es, viz=
+he $ud#ent of the trial court "hich "as affired b! this Court is not based on a stipulation of
facts. +he issue of "hether or not the appellant is ps!cholo#icall! incapacitated to dischar#e a
basic arital obli#ation "as resolved upon a revie" of both the docuentar! and testionial
evidence on record. 3ppellant aditted that he did not have se>ual relations "ith his "ife after
alost ten onths of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not sufferin# fro an! ph!sical
disabilit!. Such abnoral reluctance or un"illin#ness to consuate his arria#e is stron#l!
indicative of a serious personalit! disorder "hich to the ind of this Court clearl! deonstrates
an :utter insensitivit! or inabilit! to #ive eanin# and si#nificance to the arria#e: "ithin the
eanin# of 3rticle EH of the <ail! Code .See Santos vs. Court of 3ppeals, 5.R. No. ;;7C;1,
Banuar! 6, ;1192.
$
Petitioner further contends that respondent court erred in holdin# that the alle#ed refusal of both the petitioner and
the private respondent to have se> "ith each other constitutes ps!cholo#ical incapacit! of both. (e points out as error
the failure of the trial court to a'e ?a cate#orical findin# about the alle#ed ps!cholo#ical incapacit! and an in4depth
anal!sis of the reasons for such refusal "hich a! not be necessaril! due to ph!scholo#ical disorders? because there
i#ht have been other reasons, G i.e., ph!sical disorders, such as aches, pains or other discoforts, G "h! private
respondent "ould not "ant to have se>ual intercourse fro Ma! 77, ;100 to March ;9, ;101, in a short span of ;C
onths.
<irst, it ust be stated that neither the trial court nor the respondent court ade a findin# on "ho bet"een petitioner
and private respondent refuses to have se>ual contact "ith the other. +he fact reains, ho"ever, that there has never
been coitus bet"een the. 3t an! rate, since the action to declare the arria#e void a! be filed b! either part!, i.e.,
even the ps!cholo#icall! incapacitated, the &uestion of "ho refuses to have se> "ith the other becoes iaterial.
Petitioner clais that there is no independent evidence on record to sho" that an! of the parties is sufferin# fro
ph!cholo#ical incapacit!. Petitioner also clais that he "anted to have se> "ith private respondentD that the reason
for private respondent:s refusal a! not be ps!cholo#ical but ph!sical disorder as stated above.
)e do not a#ree. 3ssuin# it to be so, petitioner could have discussed "ith private respondent or as'ed her "hat is
ailin# her, and "h! she bal's and avoids hi ever!tie he "anted to have se>ual intercourse "ith her. (e never did.
3t least, there is nothin# in the record to sho" that he had tried to find out or discover "hat the proble "ith his "ife
could be. )hat he presented in evidence is his doctor:s Medical Report that there is no evidence of his ipotenc!
and he is capable of erection.
%
Since it is petitioner:s clai that the reason is not ps!cholo#ical but perhaps ph!sical
disorder on the part of private respondent, it becae incubent upon hi to prove such a clai.
If a spouse, althou#h ph!sicall! capable but sipl! refuses to perfor his or her essential
arria#e obli#ations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic arria#e tribunals
attribute the causes to ps!cholo#ical incapacit! than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and
protracted refusal is e&uivalent to ps!cholo#ical incapacit!. +hus, the prolon#ed refusal of a
spouse to have se>ual intercourse "ith his or her spouse is considered a si#n of ps!cholo#ical
incapacit!.
6
Evidentl!, one of the essential arital obli#ations under the <ail! Code is ?+o procreate children based on the
universal principle that procreation of children throu#h se>ual cooperation is the basic end of arria#e.? Constant
non4 fulfillent of this obli#ation "ill finall! destro! the inte#rit! or "holeness of the arria#e. In the case at bar, the
senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above arital obli#ation is e&uivalent to
ps!cholo#ical incapacit!.
3s aptl! stated b! the respondent court,
3n e>aination of the evidence convinces Is that the husband:s plea that the "ife did not "ant carnal
intercourse "ith hi does not inspire belief. Since he "as not ph!sicall! ipotent, but he refrained fro
se>ual intercourse durin# the entire tie .fro Ma! 77, ;100 to March ;9, ;1012 that he occupied the sae
bed "ith his "ife, purel! out of s!phat! for her feelin#s, he deserves to be doubted for not havin# asserted
his ri#ht seven thou#h she bal'ed .+op'ins vs. +op'ins, ;;; 3tl. 911, cited in I Paras, Civil Code, at p.
EEC2. /esides, if it "ere true that it is the "ife "as sufferin# fro incapacit!, the fact that defendant did not
#o to court and see' the declaration of nullit! "ea'ens his clai. +his case "as instituted b! the "ife "hose
noral e>pectations of her arria#e "ere frustrated b! her husband:s inade&uac!. Considerin# the innate
odest! of the <ilipino "oan, it is hard to believe that she "ould e>pose her private life to public scrutin!
and fabricate testion! a#ainst her husband if it "ere not necessar! to put her life in order and put to rest
her arital status.
)e are not ipressed b! defendant:s clai that "hat the evidence proved is the un"illin#ness or
lac' of intention to perfor the se>ual act, "hich is not ph!cholo#ical incapacit!, and "hich can
be achieved ?throu#h proper otivation.? 3fter alost ten onths of cohabitation, the adission
that the husband is reluctant or un"illin# to perfor the se>ual act "ith his "ife "ho he
professes to love ver! dearl!, and "ho has not posed an! insurountable resistance to his
alle#ed approaches, is indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious personalit! disorder
that constitutes ps!cholo#ical incapacit! to dischar#e the basic arital covenants "ithin the
conteplation of the <ail! Code.
7
)hile the la" provides that the husband and the "ife are obli#ed to live to#ether, observe utual love, respect and
fidelit! .3rt. H0, <ail! Code2, the sanction therefor is actuall! the ?spontaneous, utual affection bet"een husband
and "ife and not an! le#al andate or court order? .Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno ;7C Phil. ;7102. %ove is useless unless
it is shared "ith another. Indeed, no an is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in arria#e is to sa! ?I could not
have cared less.? +his is so because an un#iven self is an unfulfilled self. +he e#oist has nothin# but hiself. In the
natural order, it is se>ual intiac! "hich brin#s spouses "holeness and oneness. Se>ual intiac! is a #ift and a
participation in the !ster! of creation. It is a function "hich enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the
continuation of fail! relations.
It appears that there is absence of epath! bet"een petitioner and private respondent. +hat is G a shared feelin#
"hich bet"een husband and "ife ust be e>perienced not onl! b! havin# spontaneous se>ual intiac! but a deep
sense of spiritual counion. Marital union is a t"o4"a! process. 3n e>pressive interest in each other:s feelin#s at a
tie it is needed b! the other can #o a lon# "a! in deepenin# the arital relationship. Marria#e is definitel! not for
children but for t"o consentin# adults "ho vie" the relationship "ith love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and
a continuin# coitent to coproise, conscious of its value as a sublie social institution.
+his Court, findin# the #ravit! of the failed relationship in "hich the parties found theselves trapped in its ire of
unfulfilled vo"s and unconsuated arital obli#ations, can do no less but sustain the studied $ud#ent of
respondent appellate court.
IN VIE) O< +(E <ORE5OIN5 PREMISES , the assailed decision of the Court of 3ppeals dated Noveber 71,
;116 is hereb! 3<<IRMED in all respects and the petition is hereb! DENIED for lac' of erit.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Foo&no&'(
; +hirteenth Division= Minerva 5on-a#a4Re!es, B., ponente, Eduardo 5. Montene#ro and 3ntonio
P. Solano, BB., concurrin#.
7 Rollo, pp. 7C476.
E Ibid.
6 Rollo, p. E6.
9 E>hs. ?7?, ?74/? and ?74C?.
H Ps!cholo#ical Incapacit!, 5.+. Veloso, p. 7C, cited in +he <ail! Code of the Philippines
3nnotated, Pineda, ;101 ed., p. 9;.
8 Decision, pp. ;;4;7D Rollo, pp. EC4E;.