SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 119190. January 16, 1997]

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APP A!S an" GINA !AO#TSOI, respondents. $ TORR S, JR., J.% Man has not invented a reliable compass by which to steer a marriage in its journey over troubled waters !aws are seemingly inade"uate Over time# much reliance has been placed in the wor$s o% the unseen hand o% &im who created all things 'ho is to blame when a marriage %ails( )his case was originally commenced by a distraught wi%e against her uncaring husband in the *egional )rial Court o% +ue,on City -.ranch /01 which decreed the annulment o% the marriage on the ground o% psychological incapacity 2etitioner appealed the decision o% the trial court to respondent Court o% 3ppeals -C345 * CV No 6789/1 which a%%irmed the )rial Court:s decision on November 70# ;006 and correspondingly denied the motion %or reconsideration in a resolution dated <ebruary ;6# ;009 )he statement o% the case and o% the %acts made by the trial court and reproduced by the Court o% 3ppeals=;> in its decision are as %ollows? "From the evidence adduced, the following facts were preponderantly established: "Sometime on May 22, 19 , the plaintiff married the defendant at the Manila !athedral, """ #ntramuros Manila, as evidenced by their Marriage !ontract$ %&"h$ "'"( "'fter the celebration of their marriage and wedding reception at the South )illa, Ma*ati, they went and proceeded to the house of defendant+s mother$ ",here, they slept together on the same bed in the same room for the first night of their married life$ "#t is the version of the plaintiff, that contrary to her e"pectations, that as newlyweds they were supposed to en-oy ma*ing love, or having se"ual intercourse, with each other, the defendant -ust went to bed, slept on one side thereof, then turned his bac* and went to sleep$ ,here was no se"ual intercourse between them during the first night$ ,he same thing happened on the second, third and fourth nights$ "#n an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place where they can en-oy together during their first wee* as husband and wife, they went to .aguio !ity$ .ut, they did so together with her mother, an uncle, his mother and his nephew$ ,hey were all invited by the defendant to -oin them$ /,0hey stayed in .aguio !ity for four %1( days$ .ut, during this period, there was no se"ual intercourse between them, since the defendant avoided her by ta*ing a long wal* during siesta time or by -ust sleeping on a roc*ing chair located at the living room$ ,hey slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22, 19 until March 12, 19 9$ .ut during this period, there was no attempt of se"ual intercourse between them$ /S0he claims, that she did not even see her husband+s private parts nor did he see hers$ CISION

".ecause of this, they submitted themselves for medical e"aminations to 3r$ &ufemio Macalalag, a urologist at the !hinese 4eneral 5ospital, on 6anuary 27, 19 9$ 8,he results of their physical e"aminations were that she is healthy, normal and still a virgin, while that of her husband9s e"amination was *ept confidential up to this time$ :hile no medicine was prescribed for her, the doctor prescribed medications for her husband which was also *ept confidential$ ;o treatment was given to her$ For her husband, he was as*ed by the doctor to return but he never did$ ",he plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homose"ual as he did not show his penis$ She said, that she had observed the defendant using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother$ 'nd that, according to her, the defendant married her, a Filipino citi<en, to ac=uire or maintain his residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man$ ",he plaintiff is not willing to reconcile with her husband$ ">n the other hand, it is the claim of the defendant that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason of psychological incapacity, the fault lies with his wife$ ".ut, he said that he does not want his marriage with his wife annulled for several reasons, viz: %1( that he loves her very much? %2( that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically capable? and, %@( since the relationship is still very young and if there is any differences between the two of them, it can still be reconciled and that, according to him, if either one of them has some incapabilities, there is no certainty that this will not be cured$ 5e further claims, that if there is any defect, it can be cured by the intervention of medical technology or science ",he defendant admitted that since their marriage on May 22, 19 , until their separation on March 12, 19 9, there was no se"ual contact between them$ .ut, the reason for this, according to the defendant, was that everytime he wants to have se"ual intercourse with his wife, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, she always removed his hands$ ,he defendant claims, that he forced his wife to have se" with him only once but he did not continue because she was sha*ing and she did not li*e it$ So he stopped$ ",here are two %2( reasons, according to the defendant, why the plaintiff filed this case against him, and these are: %1( that she is afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces of -ewelry of his mother, and, %2( that her husband, the defendant, will consummate their marriage$ ",he defendant insisted that their marriage will remain valid because they are still very young and there is still a chance to overcome their differences$ ",he defendant submitted himself to a physical e"amination$ 5is penis was e"amined by 3r$ Sergio 'lte<a, 6r$, for the purpose of finding out whether he is impotent$ 's a result thereof, 3r$ 'lte<a submitted his 3octor+s Medical Aeport$ %&"h$ "2"($ #t is stated there, that there is no evidence of impotency %&"h$ "2B."(, and he is capable of erection$ %&"h$ "2B!"( ",he doctor said, that he as*ed the defendant to masturbate to find out whether or not he has an erection and he found out that from the original si<e of two %2( inches, or five %2( centimeters, the penis of the defendant lengthened by one %1( inch and one centimeter$ 3r$ 'lte<a said, that the defendant had only a soft erection which is why his penis is not in its full length$ .ut, still is capable of further erection, in that with his soft erection, the defendant is capable of having se"ual intercourse with a woman$ "#n open !ourt, the ,rial Crosecutor manifested that there is no collusion between the parties and that the evidence is not fabricated$D/20 3%ter trial# the court rendered judgment# the dispositive portion o% which reads?

"'!!>A3#;4EF, -udgment is hereby rendered declaring as )>#3 the marriage entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant on May 22, 19 at the Manila !athedral, .asilica of the #mmaculate !onception, #ntramuros, Manila, before the At$ Aev$ Msgr$ Melencio de )era$ :ithout costs$ Eet a copy of this decision be furnished the Eocal !ivil Aegistrar of Gue<on !ity$ Eet another copy be furnished the Eocal !ivil Aegistrar of Manila$ "S> >A3&A&3$ " On appeal# the Court o% 3ppeals a%%irmed the trial court:s decision &ence# the instant petition 2etitioner alleges that the respondent Court o% 3ppeals erred? I in affirming the conclusions of the lower court that there was no se"ual intercourse between the parties without ma*ing any findings of fact$ II in holding that the refusal of private respondent to have se"ual communion with petitioner is a psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent$ III in holding that the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have se" with each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both$ I& in affirming the annulment of the marriage between the parties decreed by the lower court without fully satisfying itself that there was no collusion between them$ 'e %ind the petition to be bere%t o% merit 2etitioner contends that being the plainti%% in Civil Case No +4/04@;6;# private respondent has the burden o% proving the allegations in her complaintA that since there was no independent evidence to prove the alleged non-coitus between the parties# there remains no other basis %or the court:s conclusion eBcept the admission o% petitionerA that public policy should aid acts intended to validate marriage and should retard acts intended to invalidate themA that the conclusion drawn by the trial court on the admissions and con%essions o% the parties in their pleadings and in the course o% the trial is misplaced since it could have been a product o% collusionA and that in actions %or annulment o% marriage# the material %acts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved =@> Section ;# *ule ;0 o% the *ules o% Court reads? "Section 1$ Judgment on the pleadings. - :here an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party+s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct -udgment on such pleading$ .ut in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal separation the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved$" )he %oregoing provision pertains to a judgment on the pleadings 'hat said provision see$s to prevent is annulment o% marriage without trial )he assailed decision was not based on such a judgment on the pleadings 'hen private respondent testi%ied under oath be%ore the trial court and was cross4 eBamined by oath be%ore the trial court and was cross4eBamined by the adverse party# she thereby

presented evidence in the %orm o% a testimony 3%ter such evidence was presented# it became incumbent upon petitioner to present his side &e admitted that since their marriage on May 77# ;0//# until their separation on March ;9# ;0/0# there was no seBual intercourse between them )o prevent collusion between the parties is the reason why# as stated by the petitioner# the Civil Code provides that no judgment annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation o% %acts or by con%ession o% judgment -3rts // and ;C;=par 7>1 and the *ules o% Court prohibit such annulment without trial -Sec ;# *ule ;01 )he case has reached this Court because petitioner does not want their marriage to be annulled )his only shows that there is no collusion between the parties 'hen petitioner admitted that he and his wi%e -private respondent1 have never had seBual contact with each other# he must have been only telling the truth 'e are reproducing the relevant portion o% the challenged resolution denying petitioner:s Motion %or *econsideration# penned with magisterial lucidity by 3ssociate Dustice Minerva 5on,aga4*eyes# viz? ",he -udgment of the trial court which was affirmed by this !ourt is not based on a stipulation of facts$ ,he issue of whether or not the appellant is psychologically incapacitated to discharge a basic marital obligation was resolved upon a review of both the documentary and testimonial evidence on record$ 'ppellant admitted that he did not have se"ual relations with his wife after almost ten months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical disability$ Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of this !ourt clearly demonstrates an +utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage+ within the meaning of 'rticle @H of the Family !ode %See Santos vs$ !ourt of 'ppeals, 4$A$ ;o$ 112719, 6anuary 1, 1992($"/10 2etitioner %urther contends that respondent court erred in holding that the alleged re%usal o% both the petitioner and the private respondent to have seB with each other constitutes psychological incapacity o% both &e points out as error the %ailure o% the trial court to ma$e Ea categorical %inding about the alleged psychological incapacity and an in4depth analysis o% the reasons %or such re%usal which may not be necessarily due to psychological disordersE because there might have been other reasons# 4 i e # physical disorders# such as aches# pains or other discom%orts# 4 why private respondent would not want to have seBual intercourse %rom May 77# ;0// to March ;9# ;0/0# in a short span o% ;C months <irst# it must be stated that neither the trial court nor the respondent court made a %inding on who between petitioner and private respondent re%uses to have seBual contact with the other )he %act remains# however# that there has never been coitus between them 3t any rate# since the action to declare the marriage void may be %iled by either party# i e # even the psychologically incapacitated# the "uestion o% who re%uses to have seB with the other becomes immaterial 2etitioner claims that there is no independent evidence on record to show that any o% the parties is su%%ering %rom psychological incapacity 2etitioner also claims that he wanted to have seB with private respondentA that the reason %or private respondent:s re%usal may not be psychological but physical disorder as stated above 'e do not agree 3ssuming it to be so# petitioner could have discussed with private respondent or as$ed her what is ailing her# and why she bal$s and avoids him everytime he wanted to have seBual intercourse with her &e never did 3t least# there is nothing in the record to show that he had tried to %ind out or discover what the problem with his wi%e could be 'hat he presented in evidence is his doctor:s Medical *eport that there is no evidence o% his impotency and he is capable o% erection =9> Since it is petitioner:s claim that the reason is not psychological but perhaps physical disorder on the part o% private respondent# it became incumbent upon him to prove such a claim "#f a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, !atholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal$ Senseless and protracted refusal is e=uivalent to psychological incapacity$ ,hus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have se"ual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity$"/H0

Evidently# one o% the essential marital obligations under the <amily Code is E)o procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation o% children through seBual cooperation is the basic end o% marriage E Constant non4%ul%illment o% this obligation will %inally destroy the integrity or wholeness o% the marriage In the case at bar# the senseless and protracted re%usal o% one o% the parties to %ul%ill the above marital obligation is e"uivalent to psychological incapacity 3s aptly stated by the respondent court# "'n e"amination of the evidence convinces Is that the husband+s plea that the wife did not want carnal intercourse with him does not inspire belief$ Since he was not physically impotent, but he refrained from se"ual intercourse during the entire time %from May 22, 19 to March 12, 19 9( that he occupied the same bed with his wife, purely out of sympathy for her feelings, he deserves to be doubted for not having asserted his rights even though she bal*ed %,omp*ins vs$ ,omp*ins, 111 'tl$ 299, cited in # Caras, !ivil !ode, at p$ @@7($ .esides, if it were true that it is the wife who was suffering from incapacity, the fact that defendant did not go to court and see* the declaration of nullity wea*ens his claim$ ,his case was instituted by the wife whose normal e"pectations of her marriage were frustrated by her husband+s inade=uacy$ !onsidering the innate modesty of the Filipino woman, it is hard to believe that she would e"pose her private life to public scrutiny and fabricate testimony against her husband if it were not necessary to put her life in order and put to rest her marital status$ ":e are not impressed by defendant+s claim that what the evidence proved is the unwillingness or lac* of intention to perform the se"ual act, which is not psychological incapacity, and which can be achieved "through proper motivation$" 'fter almost ten months of cohabitation, the admission that the husband is reluctant or unwilling to perform the se"ual act with his wife whom he professes to love very dearly, and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches, is indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants within the contemplation of the Family !ode$D/J0 'hile the law provides that the husband and the wi%e are obliged to live together# observe mutual love# respect and %idelity -3rt F/# <amily Code1# the sanction there%or is actually the Espontaneous# mutual a%%ection between husband and wi%e and not any legal mandate or court orderE -Cuaderno vs Cuaderno# ;7C 2hil ;70/1 !ove is useless unless it is shared with another Indeed# no man is an island# the cruelest act o% a partner in marriage is to say EI could not have cared less E )his is so because an ungiven sel% is an un%ul%illed sel% )he egoist has nothing but himsel% In the natural order# it is seBual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness SeBual intimacy is a gi%t and a participation in the mystery o% creation It is a %unction which enlivens the hope o% procreation and ensures the continuation o% %amily relations It appears that there is absence o% empathy between petitioner and private respondent )hat is 4 a shared %eeling which between husband and wi%e must be eBperienced not only by having spontaneous seBual intimacy but a deep sense o% spiritual communion Marital union is a two4way process 3n eBpressive interest in each other:s %eelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship Marriage is de%initely not %or children but %or two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect# sacri%ice and a continuing commitment to compromise# conscious o% its value as a sublime social institution )his Court# %inding the gravity o% the %ailed relationship in which the parties %ound themselves trapped in its mire o% un%ul%illed vows and unconsummated marital obligations# can do no less but sustain the studied judgment o% respondent appellate court IN &I ' OF TH FOR GOING PR MIS S # the assailed decision o% the Court o% 3ppeals dated November 70# ;006 is hereby 3<<I*MED in all respects and the petition is hereby DENIED %or lac$ o% merit SO OR$ R $. Regalado, (Chairman)# Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.