Case Summary (G.R. No. 119190)
Procedural History
The wife filed an annulment action in RTC Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-89-3141) on the ground of psychological incapacity. The trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s judgment on November 29, 1994 and denied a motion for reconsideration on February 14, 1995. The petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised by Petitioner
Petitioner challenged the Court of Appeals’ affirmance on several grounds: (I) that the appellate court affirmed a finding of non-consummation without its own findings of fact; (II) that the wife’s refusal to have sexual relations does not establish psychological incapacity and that proof was absent; (III) that the court wrongly treated the mutual refusal to have sex as psychological incapacity of both parties; and (IV) that the lower courts failed to assure absence of collusion and thus improperly annulled the marriage.
Burden of Proof and Rule on Pleadings
The court addressed the contention that the wife, as plaintiff, bore the burden to prove her allegations. It emphasized that Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court prevents annulment by mere judgment on the pleadings and requires material facts to be proved in annulment actions. The Supreme Court found the annulment was not based on a mere stipulation or judgment on the pleadings: the wife testified under oath, was cross-examined, and evidence was adduced. The husband also testified and admitted the absence of sexual relations. The admission by petitioner was treated as evidence, not as collusive stipulation, particularly because petitioner opposed annulment—demonstrating lack of collusion.
Collusion and Confession Concerns
The Court considered statutory prohibitions against annulling a marriage by stipulation or confession (Civil Code Arts. 88 and 101[2]) and the policy forbidding annulment without trial. It found no collusion: the petitioner actively sought to avoid annulment and admitted facts adverse to his interest in open court and under cross-examination. The Supreme Court accepted the trial record and the appellate review as resolving the factual issues after full trial, thus satisfying safeguards against collusion.
Medical Evidence and Physical Impotency
The Court examined the medical evidence. The petitioner’s medical report showed no evidence of impotency and capability for erection. The wife’s physical examination indicated she remained a virgin and required no medical treatment. Given petitioner’s physical capacity, the Court rejected the argument that the wife’s refusal was necessarily attributable to a physical disorder. The Court noted petitioner had not taken reasonable steps to investigate or prove a physical cause for the wife’s alleged refusal, thereby shifting the evidentiary burden to him when he asserted that the wife’s refusal was due to a physical condition rather than psychological incapacity.
Standard and Indicators of Psychological Incapacity
Relying on precedent and authorities cited in the record, the Court reiterated that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is a grave mental condition that renders a spouse incapable of discharging essential marital obligations. The Court explained that senseless and protracted refusal to perform basic marital obligations—particularly sexual cooperation and procreation—may be indicative of a serious personality disorder and constitute psychological incapacity. The Court considered the prolonged and unexplained refusal to consummate the marriage during extended cohabitation, despite physical capacity on the husband’s part, as strongly indicative of an inability to give meaning and significance to the marital relationship within the contemplation of Article 36.
Marital Obligations and the Centrality of Sexual Cooperation
The Court emphasized that one essential marital obligation under the Family Code is procreation through sexual cooperation. Constant non-fulfillment of this central obligation undermines the integrity and wholeness of the marriage. The Court observed an absence of empathy, mutual affection, and sexual intimacy between the parties; it construed the prolonged refusal to engage in sexual relations as destructive to the marital union and as probative of psychological incapacity to fulfill marita
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 119190)
Case Citation and Court
- Reported in 334 Phil. 294, Second Division.
- G.R. No. 119190.
- Decision promulgated January 16, 1997.
- Decision penned by Justice Torres, Jr., with concurrence by Regalado (Chairman), Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ.
- Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, J., ponente; Eduardo Montenegro and Antonio P. Solano, JJ., concurring) considered the appeal below.
Parties
- Petitioner: Chi Ming Tsoi (husband).
- Respondents: Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi (wife / private respondent).
Procedural History
- Action originally commenced by the wife (private respondent) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89, seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
- RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage void and ordered copies of the decision furnished to the Local Civil Registrars of Quezon City and Manila; judgment without costs.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 42758).
- Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on November 29, 1994 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by resolution dated February 14, 1995.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari/appeal (G.R. No. 119190).
Facts as Found by Trial Court and Reproduced by Court of Appeals
- Marriage: The parties were married on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral, Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Intramuros, Manila; marriage contract admitted as Exhibit "A".
- Wedding and immediate post-nuptial facts:
- Wedding reception at South Villa, Makati.
- Spent first married night at the house of defendant’s (husband’s) mother, slept in same bed and room.
- On the first night the husband purportedly turned his back and went to sleep; no sexual intercourse occurred.
- Same pattern of non-consummation occurred on the second, third, and fourth nights.
- Honeymoon and subsequent cohabitation:
- The couple went to Baguio City for what the plaintiff hoped would be a private honeymoon, but they were accompanied by plaintiff’s mother, an uncle, defendant’s mother, and defendant’s nephew—all invited by the defendant.
- They stayed in Baguio for four days; no sexual intercourse occurred during that period. The defendant avoided his wife by taking long walks during siesta time or sleeping on a rocking chair in the living room.
- Parties slept together in the same room and bed from May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989, and during that period there was no attempt at sexual intercourse.
- Plaintiff claimed she never saw the husband’s private parts nor he hers.
- Medical consultations:
- Both parties submitted to medical examinations on January 20, 1989 before Dr. Eufemio Macalalag, urologist, Chinese General Hospital.
- Plaintiff’s examination: healthy, normal, still a virgin; no medication prescribed; no treatment given to her.
- Defendant’s examination: results and medication prescribed were kept confidential; doctor asked defendant to return but defendant never did.
- Plaintiff’s allegations about defendant:
- Plaintiff claimed defendant was impotent, a closet homosexual (citing failure to show his penis), observed defendant using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain residency status in the Philippines and to maintain the appearance of a normal man.
- Plaintiff was not willing to reconcile.
- Defendant’s contentions and admissions:
- Defendant stated that if marriage were annulled due to psychological incapacity, fault lies with his wife.
- Defendant did not want annulment for reasons: (1) he loves his wife; (2) he claims no defect and is physically and psychologically capable; (3) relationship is young and differences can be reconciled; defects can be cured by medical technology.
- Defendant admitted no sexual contact from marriage (May 22, 1988) until separation on March 15, 1989.
- Defendant’s explanation: every time he sought intercourse, the plaintiff avoided him and removed his hands; he forced her once but stopped because she was shaking and resisted.
- Defendant alleged plaintiff filed the case for two reasons: fear of being forced to return pieces of jewelry belonging to his mother, and fear that defendant would consummate the marriage.
- Physical examination of petitioner:
- Defendant submitted to physical examination by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr.; Doctor’s Medical Report admitted as Exhibit "2".
- Reported findings: no evidence of impotency (Exh. "2-B"); defendant is capable of erection (Exh. "2-C").
- Doctor’s observation: on request defendant masturbated; from original size of two (2) inches (five (5) centimeters), the penis lengthened by one (1) inch and one centimeter; defendant had a soft erection not at full length but capable of further erection and capable of having sexual intercourse.
- Trial Prosecutor’s manifesto: in open court the Trial Prosecutor stated there was no collusion between the parties and that the evidence was not fabricated.
Trial Court Judgment
- Dispositive: Judgment declaring void the marriage entered into by the plaintiff (wife) and defendant (husband) on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral before Rt. Rev. Msgr. Melencio de Vera.
- Orders: Furnish copies of decision to the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila.
- Costs: Without costs.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s annulment judgment (decision dated November 29, 1994).
- The CA held that abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder that demonstrates an "utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage" within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.
- The CA considered both documentary and testimonial evidence, including the husband’s admission of non-consummation and medical evidence showing no physical impotence.
Issues Raised by Petitioner in the Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioner alleged the Court of Appeals erred: I. In affirming conclusions that there was no se