Art. 63: . . . This notice shall request all The next issue to be resolved is: do petitioners have
persons having knowledge of any the personality to file a petition to declare their
impediment to the marriage to advice the father's marriage void after his death?
local civil registrar thereof. . . .
Contrary to respondent judge's ruling, Article 47 of
Art. 64: Upon being advised of any alleged the Family Code 20 cannot be applied even by analogy
impediment to the marriage, the local civil to petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. The
registrar shall forthwith make an second ground for annulment of marriage relied upon
investigation, examining persons under oath. by the trial court, which allows "the sane spouse" to
... file an annulment suit "at anytime before the death of
either party" is inapplicable. Article 47 pertains to the marriage void, it will be disregarded or treated as
grounds, periods and persons who can file an non-existent by the courts." It is not like a voidable
annulment suit, not a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage which cannot be collaterally attacked except
marriage. The Code is silent as to who can file a in direct proceeding instituted during the lifetime of
petition to declare the nullity of a marriage. Voidable the parties so that on the death of either, the marriage
and void marriages are not identical. A marriage that cannot be impeached, and is made good ab
is annulable is valid until otherwise declared by the initio. 26 But Article 40 of the Family Code expressly
court; whereas a marriage that is void ab initio is provides that there must be a judicial declaration of
considered as having never to have taken place 21 and the nullity of a previous marriage, though void,
cannot be the source of rights. The first can be before a party can enter into a second marriage 27 and
generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or such absolute nullity can be based only on a final
prescription while the other can never be ratified. A judgment to that effect. 28 For the same reason, the
voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally law makes either the action or defense for the
except in a direct proceeding while a void marriage declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
can be attacked collaterally. Consequently, void imprescriptible. 29 Corollarily, if the death of either
marriages can be questioned even after the death of party would extinguish the cause of action or the
either party but voidable marriages can be assailed ground for defense, then the same cannot be
only during the lifetime of the parties and not after considered imprescriptible.
death of either, in which case the parties and their
offspring will be left as if the marriage had been However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no
perfectly valid. 22 That is why the action or defense judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an
for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike voidable absolute nullity.1âwphi1 For other purposes, such as
marriages where the action prescribes. Only the but not limited to determination of heirship,
parties to a voidable marriage can assail it but any legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of
proper interested party may attack a void marriage. estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal
Void marriages have no legal effects except those case for that matter, the court may pass upon the
declared by law concerning the properties of the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly
alleged spouses, regarding co-ownership or instituted to question the same so long as it is
ownership through actual joint contribution, 23 and its essential to the determination of the case. This is
effect on the children born to such void marriages as without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the
provided in Article 50 in relation to Article 43 and 44 case. When such need arises, a final judgment of
as well as Article 51, 53 and 54 of the Family Code. declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose
On the contrary, the property regime governing is other than to remarry. The clause "on the basis of a
voidable marriages is generally conjugal partnership final judgment declaring such previous marriage
and the children conceived before its annulment are void" in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that
legitimate. such final judgment need not be obtained only for
purpose of remarriage.
Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the death of
petitioner's father extinguished the alleged marital WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
bond between him and respondent. The conclusion is assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court, Toledo
erroneous and proceeds from a wrong premise that City, Cebu, Branch 59, dismissing Civil Case No. T-
there was a marriage bond that was dissolved 639, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The said case
between the two. It should be noted that their is ordered REINSTATED.1âwphi1.nêt
marriage was void hence it is deemed as if it never
existed at all and the death of either extinguished
SO ORDERED.
nothing.
The present petition for review on certiorari, at the On 06 November 1991, the court a quo finally
instance of Leouel Santos ("Leouel"), brings into fore dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.3
the above provision which is now invoked by him.
Undaunted by the decisions of the court a quo1 and Leouel appealed to the Court of Appeal. The latter
the Court of Appeal,2 Leouel persists in beseeching affirmed the decision of the trial court.4
its application in his attempt to have his marriage
with herein private respondent, Julia Rosario Bedia- The petition should be denied not only because of its
Santos ("Julia"), declared a nullity. non-compliance with Circular 28-91, which requires
a certification of non-shopping, but also for its lack of
It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then held the merit.
rank of First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first
met Julia. The meeting later proved to be an eventful Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home,
day for Leouel and Julia. On 20 September 1986, the or at the very least to communicate with him, for
two exchanged vows before Municipal Trial Court more than five years are circumstances that clearly
Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City, followed, show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter
shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. Leouel and into married life. In his own words, Leouel asserts:
Julia lived with the latter's parents at the J. Bedia
Compound, La Paz, Iloilo City. On 18 July 1987,
. . . (T)here is no leave, there is no affection for (him)
Julia gave birth to a baby boy, and he was christened
because respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos failed
Leouel Santos, Jr. The ecstasy, however, did not last
all these years to communicate with the petitioner. A
long. It was bound to happen, Leouel averred,
wife who does not care to inform her husband about
because of the frequent interference by Julia's parents her whereabouts for a period of five years, more or
into the young spouses family affairs. Occasionally, less, is psychologically incapacitated.
the couple would also start a "quarrel" over a number
of other things, like when and where the couple
should start living independently from Julia's parents The family Code did not define the term
or whenever Julia would express resentment on "psychological incapacity." The deliberations during
Leouel's spending a few days with his own parents. the sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee,
which has drafted the Code, can, however, provide an
insight on the import of the provision.
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United
Sates of America to work as a nurse despite Leouel's
pleas to so dissuade her. Seven months after her Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from
departure, or on 01 January 1989, Julia called up the beginning:
Leouel for the first time by long distance telephone.
She promised to return home upon the expiration of Art. 36. (7) Those marriages contracted by any party
her contract in July 1989. She never did. When who, at the time of the celebration, was wanting in
Leouel got a chance to visit the United States, where the sufficient use of reason or judgment to understand
he underwent a training program under the auspices the essential nature of marriage or was
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 01 April psychologically or mentally incapacitated to
up to 25 August 1990, he desperately tried to locate, discharge the essential marital obligations, even if
or to somehow get in touch with, Julia but all his such lack of incapacity is made manifest after the
efforts were of no avail. celebration.
Having failed to get Julia to somehow come home, On subparagraph (7), which as lifted from the Canon
Leouel filed with the regional trial Court of Negros Law, Justice (Jose B.L.) Reyes suggested that they
Oriental, Branch 30, a complaint for "Voiding of say "wanting in sufficient use," but Justice (Eduardo)
Caguioa preferred to say "wanting in the sufficient On another point, Justice Puno suggested that the
use." On the other hand, Justice Reyes proposed that phrase "even if such lack or incapacity is made
they say "wanting in sufficient reason." Justice manifest" be modified to read "even if such lack or
Caguioa, however, pointed out that the idea is that incapacity becomes manifest."
one is not lacking in judgment but that he is lacking
in the exercise of judgment. He added that lack of Justice Reyes remarked that in insanity, at the time of
judgment would make the marriage voidable. Judge the marriage, it is not apparent.
(Alicia Sempio-) Diy remarked that lack of judgment
is more serious than insufficient use of judgment and Justice Caguioa stated that there are two
yet the latter would make the marriage null and void
interpretations of the phrase "psychological or
and the former only voidable. Justice Caguioa
mentally incapacitated" — in the first one, there is
suggested that subparagraph (7) be modified to read:
vitiation of consent because one does not know all
the consequences of the marriages, and if he had
"That contracted by any party who, at the time of the known these completely, he might not have
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to consented to the marriage.
discharge the essential marital obligations, even if
such lack of incapacity is made manifest after the
Prof. Bautista stated that he is in favor of making
celebration."
psychological incapacity a ground for voidable
marriages since otherwise it will encourage one who
Justice Caguioa explained that the phrase "was really understood the consequences of marriage to
wanting in sufficient use of reason of judgment to claim that he did not and to make excuses for
understand the essential nature of marriage" refers to invalidating the marriage by acting as if he did not
defects in the mental faculties vitiating consent, understand the obligations of marriage. Dean Gupit
which is not the idea in subparagraph (7), but lack of added that it is a loose way of providing for divorce.
appreciation of one's marital obligations.
Justice Caguioa explained that his point is that in the
Judge Diy raised the question: Since "insanity" is also case of incapacity by reason of defects in the mental
a psychological or mental incapacity, why is faculties, which is less than insanity, there is a defect
"insanity" only a ground for annulment and not for in consent and, therefore, it is clear that it should be a
declaration or nullity? In reply, Justice Caguioa ground for voidable marriage because there is the
explained that in insanity, there is the appearance of appearance of consent and it is capable of
consent, which is the reason why it is a ground for convalidation for the simple reason that there are
voidable marriages, while subparagraph (7) does not lucid intervals and there are cases when the insanity
refer to consent but to the very essence of marital is curable. He emphasized that psychological
obligations. incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has
nothing to do with consent; it refers to obligations
Prof. (Araceli) Baviera suggested that, in attendant to marriage.
subparagraph (7), the word "mentally" be deleted,
with which Justice Caguioa concurred. Judge Diy, On psychological incapacity, Prof. (Flerida Ruth P.)
however, prefers to retain the word "mentally." Romero inquired if they do not consider it as going to
the very essence of consent. She asked if they are
Justice Caguioa remarked that subparagraph (7) really removing it from consent. In reply, Justice
refers to psychological impotence. Justice (Ricardo) Caguioa explained that, ultimately, consent in general
Puno stated that sometimes a person may be is effected but he stressed that his point is that it is
psychologically impotent with one but not with not principally a vitiation of consent since there is a
another. Justice (Leonor Ines-) Luciano said that it is valid consent. He objected to the lumping together of
called selective impotency. the validity of the marriage celebration and the
obligations attendant to marriage, which are
Dean (Fortunato) Gupit stated that the confusion lies completely different from each other, because they
in the fact that in inserting the Canon Law annulment require a different capacity, which is eighteen years
in the Family Code, the Committee used a language of age, for marriage but in contract, it is different.
which describes a ground for voidable marriages Justice Puno, however, felt that psychological
under the Civil Code. Justice Caguioa added that in incapacity is still a kind of vice of consent and that it
Canon Law, there are voidable marriages under the should not be classified as a voidable marriage which
Canon Law, there are no voidable marriages Dean is incapable of convalidation; it should be
Gupit said that this is precisely the reason why they convalidated but there should be no prescription. In
should make a distinction. other words, as long as the defect has not been cured,
there is always a right to annul the marriage and if the
defect has been really cured, it should be a defense in
Justice Puno remarked that in Canon Law, the defects
the action for annulment so that when the action for
in marriage cannot be cured.
annulment is instituted, the issue can be raised that
actually, although one might have been
Justice Reyes pointed out that the problem is: Why is psychologically incapacitated, at the time the action
"insanity" a ground for void ab initio marriages? In is brought, it is no longer true that he has no concept
reply, Justice Caguioa explained that insanity is of the consequence of marriage.
curable and there are lucid intervals, while
psychological incapacity is not.
Prof. (Esteban) Bautista raised the question: Will not Justice Caguioa suggested that "even if" be
cohabitation be a defense? In response, Justice Puno substituted with "although." On the other hand, Prof.
stated that even the bearing of children and Bautista proposed that the clause "although such
cohabitation should not be a sign that psychological incapacity becomes manifest after its solemnization"
incapacity has been cured. be deleted since it may encourage one to create the
manifestation of psychological incapacity. Justice
Prof. Romero opined that psychological incapacity is Caguioa pointed out that, as in other provisions, they
still insanity of a lesser degree. Justice Luciano cannot argue on the basis of abuse.
suggested that they invite a psychiatrist, who is the
expert on this matter. Justice Caguioa, however, Judge Diy suggested that they also include mental
reiterated that psychological incapacity is not a defect and physical incapacities, which are lesser in degree
in the mind but in the understanding of the than psychological incapacity. Justice Caguioa
consequences of marriage, and therefore, a explained that mental and physical incapacities are
psychiatrist will not be a help. vices of consent while psychological incapacity is not
a species of vice or consent.
Prof. Bautista stated that, in the same manner that
there is a lucid interval in insanity, there are also Dean Gupit read what Bishop Cruz said on the matter
momentary periods when there is an understanding of in the minutes of their February 9, 1984 meeting:
the consequences of marriage. Justice Reyes and
Dean Gupit remarked that the ground of "On the third ground, Bishop Cruz indicated that the
psychological incapacity will not apply if the phrase "psychological or mental impotence" is an
marriage was contracted at the time when there is invention of some churchmen who are moralists but
understanding of the consequences of marriage.5 not canonists, that is why it is considered a weak
phrase. He said that the Code of Canon Law would
Judge Diy proposed that they include physical rather express it as "psychological or mental
incapacity to copulate among the grounds for void incapacity to discharge . . ."
marriages. Justice Reyes commented that in some
instances the impotence that in some instances the Justice Caguioa remarked that they deleted the word
impotence is only temporary and only with respect to "mental" precisely to distinguish it from vice of
a particular person. Judge Diy stated that they can consent. He explained that "psychological incapacity"
specify that it is incurable. Justice Caguioa remarked refers to lack of understanding of the essential
that the term "incurable" has a different meaning in obligations of marriage.
law and in medicine. Judge Diy stated that
"psychological incapacity" can also be cured. Justice Justice Puno reminded the members that, at the last
Caguioa, however, pointed out that "psychological meeting, they have decided not to go into the
incapacity" is incurable.
classification of "psychological incapacity" because
there was a lot of debate on it and that this is
Justice Puno observed that under the present draft precisely the reason why they classified it as a special
provision, it is enough to show that at the time of the case.
celebration of the marriage, one was psychologically
incapacitated so that later on if already he can comply
At this point, Justice Puno, remarked that, since there
with the essential marital obligations, the marriage is
having been annulments of marriages arising from
still void ab initio. Justice Caguioa explained that
psychological incapacity, Civil Law should not
since in divorce, the psychological incapacity may
reconcile with Canon Law because it is a new ground
occur after the marriage, in void marriages, it has to even under Canon Law.
be at the time of the celebration of marriage. He,
however, stressed that the idea in the provision is that
at the time of the celebration of the marriage, one is Prof. Romero raised the question: With this common
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the provision in Civil Law and in Canon Law, are they
essential marital obligations, which incapacity going to have a provision in the Family Code to the
continues and later becomes manifest. effect that marriages annulled or declared void by the
church on the ground of psychological incapacity is
automatically annulled in Civil Law? The other
Justice Puno and Judge Diy, however, pointed out
members replied negatively.
that it is possible that after the marriage, one's
psychological incapacity become manifest but later
on he is cured. Justice Reyes and Justice Caguioa Justice Puno and Prof. Romero inquired if Article 37
opined that the remedy in this case is to allow him to should be retroactive or prospective in application.
remarry.6
Justice Diy opined that she was for its retroactivity
Justice Puno formulated the next Article as follows: because it is their answer to the problem of church
annulments of marriages, which are still valid under
the Civil Law. On the other hand, Justice Reyes and
Art. 37. A marriage contracted by any party who, at
Justice Puno were concerned about the avalanche of
the time of the celebration, was psychologically
cases.
incapacitated, to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage shall likewise be void from
the beginning even if such incapacity becomes Dean Gupit suggested that they put the issue to a
manifest after its solemnization. vote, which the Committee approved.
The members voted as follows: The history of the drafting of this canon does not
leave any doubt that the legislator intended, indeed,
(1) Justice Reyes, Justice Puno and Prof. Romero to broaden the rule. A strict and narrow norm was
were for prospectivity. proposed first:
(2) Justice Caguioa, Judge Diy, Dean Gupit, Prof. Those who cannot assume the essential obligations of
Bautista and Director Eufemio were for retroactivity. marriage because of a grave psycho-sexual anomaly
(ob gravem anomaliam psychosexualem) are unable
to contract marriage (cf. SCH/1975, canon 297, a new
(3) Prof. Baviera abstained.
canon, novus); then a broader one followed: . . .
because of a grave psychological anomaly (ob
Justice Caguioa suggested that they put in the gravem anomaliam psychicam) . . . (cf. SCH/1980,
prescriptive period of ten years within which the canon 1049);
action for declaration of nullity of the marriage
should be filed in court. The Committee approved the
then the same wording was retained in the text
suggestion.7
submitted to the pope (cf. SCH/1982, canon 1095, 3);
It could well be that, in sum, the Family Code
Revision Committee in ultimately deciding to adopt finally, a new version was promulgated:
the provision with less specificity than expected, has
in fact, so designed the law as to allow some because of causes of a psychological nature (ob
resiliency in its application. Mme. Justice Alicia V. causas naturae psychiae).
Sempio-Diy, a member of the Code Committee, has
been quoted by Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo So the progress was from psycho sexual to
in Salita vs. Hon. Magtolis (G.R. No. 106429, 13 psychological anomaly, then the term anomaly was
June 1994); thus:8 altogether eliminated. it would be, however, incorrect
to draw the conclusion that the cause of the
The Committee did not give any examples of incapacity need not be some kind of psychological
psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of disorder; after all, normal and healthy person should
examples would limit the applicability of the be able to assume the ordinary obligations of
provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. marriage.
Rather, the Committee would like the judge to
interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided Fr. Orsy concedes that the term "psychological
by experience, the findings of experts and researchers incapacity" defies any precise definition since
in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of psychological causes can be of an infinite variety.
church tribunals which, although not binding on the
civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the In a book, entitled "Canons and Commentaries on
provision was taken from Canon Law. Marriage," written by Ignatius Gramunt, Javier
Hervada and LeRoy Wauck, the following
A part of the provision is similar to Canon 1095 of explanation appears:
the New Code of Canon Law,9 which reads:
This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a
Canon 1095. They are incapable of contracting true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of
marriage: marriage. Some psychosexual disorders and other
disorders of personality can be the psychic cause of
1. who lack sufficient use of reason; this defect, which is here described in legal terms.
This particular type of incapacity consists of a
2. who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of real inability to render what is due by the contract.
judgment concerning essentila matrimonial rights and This could be compared to the incapacity of a farmer
to enter a binding contract to deliver the crops which
duties, to be given and accepted mutually;
he cannot possibly reap; (b) this inability to commit
oneself must refer to the essential obligations of
3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and
to assume the essential obligations of marriage. love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation
(Emphasis supplied.) and education of offspring; (c) the inability must be
tantamount to a psychological abnormality. The mere
Accordingly, although neither decisive nor even difficulty of assuming these obligations, which could
perhaps all that persuasive for having no juridical or be overcome by normal effort, obviously does not
secular effect, the jurisprudence under Canon Law constitute incapacity. The canon contemplates a true
prevailing at the time of the code's enactment, psychological disorder which incapacitates a person
nevertheless, cannot be dismissed as impertinent for from giving what is due (cf. John Paul II, Address to
its value as an aid, at least, to the interpretation or R. Rota, Feb. 5, 1987). However, if the marriage is to
construction of the codal provision. be declared invalid under this incapacity, it must be
proved not only that the person is afflicted by a
One author, Ladislas Orsy, S.J., in his psychological defect, but that the defect did in
treaties, 10 giving an account on how the third fact deprive the person, at the moment of giving
paragraph of Canon 1095 has been framed, states: consent, of the ability to assume the essential duties
of marriage and consequently of the possibility of legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.
being bound by these duties. These provisions of the Code, however, do not
necessarily preclude the possibility of these various
Justice Sempio-Diy 11 cites with approval the work of circumstances being themselves, depending on the
Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic psychological incapacity.
Archdiocese of Manila (Branch 1), who opines that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. are established, every circumstance that may have
The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the some bearing on the degree, extent, and other
party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary conditions of that incapacity must, in every case, be
duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the carefully examined and evaluated so that no
history of the party antedating the marriage, although precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily
the overt manifestations may emerge only after the decreed. The well-considered opinions of
marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were psychiatrists, psychologists, and persons with
otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the expertise in psychological disciplines might be
party involved. helpful or even desirable.
It should be obvious, looking at all the foregoing Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime
disquisitions, including, and most importantly, the commitment. We should continue to be reminded that
deliberations of the Family Code Revision innate in our society, then enshrined in our Civil
Committee itself, that the use of the phrase Code, and even now still indelible in Article 1 of the
"psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code, is that —
Code has not been meant to comprehend all such
possible cases of psychoses as, likewise mentioned Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent
by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low union between a man a woman entered into in
intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances accordance with law for the establishment of
(cited in Fr. Artemio Baluma's "Void and Voidable conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the
Marriages in the Family Code and their Parallels in family and an inviolable social institution whose
Canon Law," quoting from the Diagnostic Statistical nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by
Manual of Mental Disorder by the American law and not subject to stipulation, except that
Psychiatric Association; Edward Hudson's marriage settlements may fix the property relations
"Handbook II for Marriage Nullity Cases"). Article during the marriage within the limits provided by this
36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and construed Code. (Emphasis supplied.)
independently of, but must stand in conjunction with,
existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus Our Constitution is no less emphatic:
correlated, "psychological incapacity" should refer to
no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic Sec. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the
marital covenants that concomitantly must be foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall
assumed and discharged by the parties to the strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the development.
Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live
together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is
help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the the foundation of the family and shall be protected by
intendment of the law has been to confine the the State. (Article XV, 1987 Constitution).
meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most
serious cases of personality disorders clearly The above provisions express so well and so
demonstrative of an utter intensitivity or inability to distinctly the basic nucleus of our laws on marriage
give meaning and significance to the marriage. This and the family, and they are doubt the tenets we still
pschologic condition must exist at the time the hold on to.
marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently
envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the The factual settings in the case at bench, in no
spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This measure at all, can come close to the standards
conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family required to decree a nullity of marriage. Undeniably
Code which considers children conceived prior to the and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even
judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably,
be "legitimate." neither law nor society itself can always provide all
the specific answers to every individual problem.
The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the
inception of marriage, like the state of a party being WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction,
habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism,
merely renders the marriage
contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family
Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcholism,
lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only
during the marriage, they become mere grounds for
Republic of the Philippines same thing happened on the second, third
SUPREME COURT and fourth nights.
Manila
In an effort to have their honeymoon in a
SECOND DIVISION private place where they can enjoy together
during their first week as husband and wife,
G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 Case No. 5 they went to Baguio City. But, they did so
together with her mother, an uncle, his
mother and his nephew. They were all
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,
invited by the defendant to join them. [T]hey
vs.
stayed in Baguio City for four (4) days. But,
COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-
during this period, there was no sexual
TSOI, respondents.
intercourse between them, since the
defendant avoided her by taking a long walk
TORRES, JR., J.: during siesta time or by just sleeping on a
rocking chair located at the living room.
Man has not invented a reliable compass by which to They slept together in the same room and on
steer a marriage in its journey over troubled waters. the same bed since May 22, 1988 until
Laws are seemingly inadequate. Over time, much March 15, 1989. But during this period,
reliance has been placed in the works of the unseen there was no attempt of sexual intercourse
hand of Him who created all things. between them. [S]he claims, that she did not:
even see her husband's private parts nor did
Who is to blame when a marriage fails? he see hers.
This case was originally commenced by a distraught Because of this, they submitted themselves
wife against her uncaring husband in the Regional for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio
Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 89) which Macalalag, a urologist at the Chinese
decreed the annulment of the marriage on the ground General Hospital, on January 20, 1989.
of psychological incapacity. Petitioner appealed the
decision of the trial court to respondent Court of The results of their physical examinations
Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 42758) which affirmed were that she is healthy, normal and still a
the Trial Court's decision November 29, 1994 and virgin, while that of her husband's
correspondingly denied the motion for examination was kept confidential up to this
reconsideration in a resolution dated February 14, time. While no medicine was prescribed for
1995. her, the doctor prescribed medications for
her husband which was also kept
The statement of the case and of the facts made by confidential. No treatment was given to her.
the trial court and reproduced by the Court of For her husband, he was asked by the doctor
Appeals1 its decision are as follows: to return but he never did.
From the evidence adduced, the following The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is
acts were preponderantly established: impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not
show his penis. She said, that she had
Sometime on May 22, 1988, the plaintiff observed the defendant using an eyebrow
married the defendant at the Manila pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of
Cathedral, . . . Intramuros Manila, as his mother. And that, according to her, the
evidenced by their Marriage Contract. (Exh. defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to
"A") acquire or maintain his residency status here
in the country and to publicly maintain the
appearance of a normal man.
After the celebration of their marriage and
wedding reception at the South Villa,
Makati, they went and proceeded to the The plaintiff is not willing to reconcile with
house of defendant's mother. her husband.
There, they slept together on the same bed in On the other hand, it is the claim of the
the same room for the first night of their defendant that if their marriage shall be
married life. annulled by reason of psychological
incapacity, the fault lies with his wife.
It is the version of the plaintiff, that contrary
to her expectations, that as newlyweds they But, he said that he does not want his
were supposed to enjoy making love, or marriage with his wife annulled for several
having sexual intercourse, with each other, reasons, viz: (1) that he loves her very much;
the defendant just went to bed, slept on one (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is
side thereof, then turned his back and went physically and psychologically capable; and,
to sleep. There was no sexual intercourse (3) since the relationship is still very young
between them during the first night. The 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 ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby
has some incapabilities, there is no certainty rendered declaring as VOID the marriage
that this will not be cured. He further claims, entered into by the plaintiff with the
that if there is any defect, it can be cured by defendant on May 22, 1988 at the Manila
the intervention of medical technology or Cathedral, Basilica of the Immaculate
science. Conception, Intramuros, Manila, before the
Rt. Rev. Msgr. Melencio de Vera. Without
The defendant admitted that since their costs. Let a copy of this decision be
marriage on May 22, 1988, until their furnished the Local Civil Registrar of
separation on March 15, 1989, there was no Quezon City. Let another copy be furnished
sexual contact between them. But, the the Local Civil Registrar of Manila.
reason for this, according to the defendant,
was that everytime he wants to have sexual SO ORDERED.
intercourse with his wife, she always
avoided him and whenever he caresses her On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
private parts, she always removed his hands. court's decision.
The defendant claims, that he forced his
wife to have sex with him only once but he
Hence, the instant petition.
did not continue because she was shaking
and she did not like it. So he stopped.
Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court of
Appeals erred:
There are two (2) reasons, according to the
defendant , why the plaintiff filed this case
against him, and these are: (1) that she is I
afraid that she will be forced to return the
pieces of jewelry of his mother, and, (2) that in affirming the conclusions of the lower
her husband, the defendant, will court that there was no sexual intercourse
consummate their marriage. between the parties without making any
findings of fact.
The defendant insisted that their marriage
will remain valid because they are still very II
young and there is still a chance to
overcome their differences. in holding that the refusal of private
respondent to have sexual communion with
The defendant submitted himself to a petitioner is a psychological incapacity
physical examination. His penis was inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent.
examined by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr., for the
purpose of finding out whether he is III
impotent . As a result thereof, Dr. Alteza
submitted his Doctor's Medical Report. in holding that the alleged refusal of both the
(Exh. "2"). It is stated there, that there is no petitioner and the private respondent to have
evidence of impotency (Exh. "2-B"), and he sex with each other constitutes
is capable of erection. (Exh. "2-C") psychological incapacity of both.
While the law provides that the husband and the wife
are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the
sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous, mutual
affection between husband and wife and not any legal
mandate or court order" (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno 120
Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with
another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act
of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have