Case Summary (G.R. No. 119190)
Factual Background
During the first four nights and throughout a honeymoon trip (in the presence of relatives), the parties slept in the same bed without engaging in sexual intercourse. Cohabitation continued for ten months with no attempt at consummation; the wife claimed total ignorance of her husband’s genitalia.
Medical Findings
Wife’s examination by a urologist confirmed normal health and virginity; husband’s results were confidential and he did not return for follow-up. Subsequent examination by another specialist showed no physical impotence and a capacity for erection, albeit a “soft” one sufficient for intercourse.
Contentions of the Parties
Private respondent alleged petitioner’s impotence and psychological inability to perform marital obligations, suggesting ulterior motives for marriage. Petitioner insisted on his physical and psychological fitness, argued lack of independent evidence, and raised public policy favoring marital validity, while denying collusion.
Legal Issues
- Whether the refusal or inability to consummate constitutes psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
- Whether the evidence (including petitioner’s own admissions) sufficed to prove such incapacity.
- Whether collusion prevented a fair adjudication.
Analysis on Psychological Incapacity
Psychological incapacity is a grave disorder rendering a spouse incapable of fulfilling essential marital duties, including the obligation “to procreate children through sexual cooperation.” A senseless and prolonged refusal to consummate—absent physical impediment—demonstrates an “utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.” Petitioner’s admission of complete non-coitus over ten months, in spite of physical capacity, met the standard for psychological incapacity.
Collusion and Burden of Proof
Annulment by confession or stipulation is prohibited (Civil Code Arts. 88 & 101; Rules of Court, Rule 19, Sec. 1). The record shows contested testimony, cross-examination, and petitioner’s oppos
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 119190)
Facts of the Case
- On May 22, 1988, petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi and respondent Gina Lao-Tsoi were married at the Manila Cathedral in Intramuros, Manila, as evidenced by their marriage contract (Exh. “A”).
- After the reception at South Villa, Makati, they spent their first night together at the home of the defendant’s mother; although they shared the same bed and room, the husband turned his back and slept without attempting sexual intercourse.
- The same pattern—co-sleeping without coitus—recurred during the second, third, and fourth nights of marriage.
- The couple went to Baguio City for a supposed honeymoon, accompanied by relatives of both spouses; for four days they shared a room and bed but, by the wife’s account, the husband avoided sexual relations by taking long walks or sleeping in a rocking chair.
- From May 22, 1988, to March 15, 1989—a period of nearly ten months—there was no attempt at sexual intercourse; each spouse claimed never to have seen the other’s private parts.
- On January 20, 1989, both underwent physical examination by Dr. Eufemio Macalalag: the wife was found healthy, normal, and still a virgin; the husband’s examination results and prescribed medications were kept confidential, and he did not return for follow-up.
- The wife alleged the husband’s impotence, closet homosexuality, use of cosmetic products, and that the marriage was a stratagem to secure his residency status in the Philippines.
- The husband denied any physical or psychological incapacity, professed love for his wife, and asserted that any differences were reconcilable or curable by medical intervention; he claimed that the wife consistently avoided his advances and that he had attempted intercourse only once, stopping upon her distress.
- He further contended that the suit was motivated by the wife’s fear of returning jewelry to his mother and by her reluctance to consummate the marriage.
- The husband submitted to a urological examination by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr., who found no evidence of impotency, observed a soft erection, and concluded that the husband was capable of sexual intercourse.
- In open court, the trial prosecutor affirmed absence of collusi