ching ming chai vs court of appeals

8/13/2019 Ching Ming Chai vs Court of Appeals

1/7

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME 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 ofthe 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 theRe#ional +rial Court of ue-on Cit! /ranch 012 "hich decreed the annulent of the arria#e onthe #round of ps!cholo#ical incapacit!. Petitioner appealed the decision of the trial court torespondent Court of 3ppeals C345.R. CV No. 678902 "hich affired the +rial Court:s decisionNoveber 71, ;116 and correspondin#l! denied the otion for reconsideration in a resolution datedual 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 onthe second, third and fourth ni#hts.


2/7

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 "ithher 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 nose>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. @SAheclais, 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. EufeioMacalala#, a urolo#ist at the Chinese 5eneral (ospital, on Banuar! 7, ;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 noedicine "as prescribed for her, the doctor prescribed edications for her husband "hich"as also 'ept confidential. No treatent "as #iven to her. 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!sreoved 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 hestopped.

+here are t"o 72 reasons, accordin# to the defendant , "h! the plaintiff filed this casea#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 theirarria#e.


3/7

+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 hasan erection and he found out that fro the ori#inal si-e of t"o 72 inches, or five 92centieters, 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 fulllen#th. /ut, still is capable of further erection, in that "ith his soft erection, the defendant iscapable of havin# se>ual intercourse "ith a "oan.

In open Court, the +rial Prosecutor anifested that there is no collusion bet"een the partiesand 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 intob! the plaintiff "ith the defendant on Ma! 77, ;100 at the Manila Cathedral, /asilica of theIaculate 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-onCit!. %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"eenthe 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 havese> "ith each other constitutes ps!cholo#ical incapacit! of both.

IV


4/7

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. 4014;6;, private respondent has the

burden of provin# the alle#ations in her coplaint that since there "as no independent evidence toprove the alle#ed non4coitus bet"een the parties, there reains no other basis for the court:sconclusion e>cept the adission of petitioner that public polic! should aid acts intended to validatearria#e and should retard acts intended to invalidate the that the conclusion dra"n b! the trialcourt on the adissions and confessions of the parties in their pleadin#s and in the course of thetrial is isplaced since it could have been a product of collusion and that in actions for annulent ofarria#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, orother"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 ofarria#e or for le#al separation the aterial facts alle#ed in the coplaint shall al"a!s beproved.

+he fore#oin# provision pertains to a $ud#ent on the pleadin#s. )hat said provision see's toprevent 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 becae 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 CivilCode provides that no $ud#ent annullin# a arria#e shall be proul#ated upon a stipulation offacts or b! confession of $ud#ent 3rts. 00 and ;;@par. 7A2 and the Rules of Court prohibit suchannulent "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 andhis "ife private respondent2 have never had se>ual contact "ith each other, he ust have beenonl! 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 BusticeMinerva 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 todischar#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 hisarria#e is stron#l! indicative of a serious personalit! disorder "hich to the ind of thisCourt clearl! deonstrates an :utter insensitivit! or inabilit! to #ive eanin# and si#nificanceto the arria#e: "ithin the eanin# of 3rticle H of the


5/7

Petitioner further contends that respondent court erred in holdin# that the alle#ed refusal of both thepetitioner and the private respondent to have se> "ith each other constitutes ps!cholo#icalincapacit! 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 otherreasons, 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 ashort span of ; onths.

ual contact "ith the other. +he factreains, ho"ever, that there has never been coitus bet"een the. 3t an! rate, since the action todeclare 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 issufferin# fro ph!cholo#ical incapacit!. Petitioner also clais that he "anted to have se> "ithprivate respondent 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 oras'ed her "hat is ailin# her, and "h! she bal's and avoids hi ever!tie he "anted to have se>ualintercourse "ith her. (e never did. 3t least, there is nothin# in the record to sho" that he had tried tofind out or discover "hat the proble "ith his "ife could be. )hat he presented in evidence is hisdoctor:s Medical Report that there is no evidence of his ipotenc! and he is capable oferection.%Since it is petitioner:s clai that the reason is not ps!cholo#ical but perhaps ph!sical disorderon 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 essentialarria#e obli#ations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic arria#e tribunalsattribute 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 aspouse to have se>ual intercourse "ith his or her spouse is considered a si#n ofps!cholo#ical incapacit!.6

Evidentl!, one of the essential arital obli#ations under the ual cooperation is the basicend 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 theparties 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 s 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, ;100to March ;9, ;1012 that he occupied the sae bed "ith his "ife, purel! out of s!phat! forher feelin#s, he deserves to be doubted for not havin# asserted his ri#ht seven thou#h shebal'ed +op'ins vs. +op'ins, ;;; 3tl. 911, cited in I Paras, Civil Code, at p. 2./esides, if it "ere true that it is the "ife "as sufferin# fro incapacit!, the fact that defendantdid not #o to court and see' the declaration of nullit! "ea'ens his clai. +his case "asinstituted b! the "ife "hose noral e>pectations of her arria#e "ere frustrated b! her


6/7

husband:s inade&uac!. Considerin# the innate odest! of the 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 aritalstatus.

)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#icalincapacit!, and "hich can be achieved ?throu#h proper otivation.? 3fter alost ten onthsof cohabitation, the adission that the husband is reluctant or un"illin# to perfor the se>ualact "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#ethe basic arital covenants "ithin the conteplation of the 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 alon# "a! in deepenin# the arital relationship. Marria#e is definitel! not for children but for t"oconsentin# adults "ho vie" the relationship "ith love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and acontinuin# 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 trappedin its ire of unfulfilled vo"s and unconsuated arital obli#ations, can do no less but sustain thestudied $ud#ent of respondent appellate court.

IN VIE) O< +(E


7/7

Ibid.

6 Rollo, p. 6.

9 E>hs. ?7?, ?74/? and ?74C?.

H Ps!cholo#ical Incapacit!, 5.+. Veloso, p. 7, cited in +he

ching ming chai vs court of appeals

Documents