santos vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 112019; January 4, 1995
Art. 36(Civil Code)- PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

FACTS: Leouel Santos, a member of the Army, met Julia in Iloilo City. In September 20, 1986,
they got married. The couple latter lived with Julia’s parents. Julia gave birth to a son in 1987.
Their marriage, however, was marred by the frequent interference of Julia’s parent as averred
by Leouel. The couple also occasionally quarrels about as to, among other things, when should
they start living independently from Julia’s parents. In 1988, Julia went to the US to work as a
nurse despite Leouel’s opposition. 7 months later, she and Leouel got to talk and she promised
to return home in 1989. She never went home that year. In 1990, Leouel got the chance to be in
the US due to a military training. During his stay, he desperately tried to locate his wife but to no
avail. Leouel, in an effort to at least have his wife come home, Leouel filed with the regional trial
Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a complaint for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of
the Family Code" in 1991.Leouel asserted that due to Julia’s failure to return home or at least
communicate with him even with all his effort constitutes psychological incapacity. Julia attacked
the complaint and she said that it is Leouel who is incompetent. The prosecutor ascertained that
there is no collusion between the two. Leouel’s petition is however denied by the lower and
appellate court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of Julia to return home or at the very least to communicate
with her husband,for more than five (5) years constitute psychological incapacity.

RULINGS: No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband Leouel
for more than five (5) years does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which (Art. 68), include their mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the
most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must
exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
The SC also notes that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the
party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be
rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved.
In the case at bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be dismissed because
the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife is not clearly shown by the factual settings
presented. The factual settings do not come close to to the standard required to decree a nullity
of marriage.
Petition is denied.

CHI MING TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GINA LAO-TSOI GR NO. 119190 January 16, 1997
FACTS: Ching married Gina on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila as
evidenced by their marriage contract. After the celebration they had a reception and then
proceeded to the house of the Ching Ming Tsoi’s mother. There they slept together on the same
bed in the same room for the first night of their married life.
Gina’s version: that contrary to her expectations that as newlyweds they were supposed to
enjoy making love that night of their marriage, or having sexual intercourse, with each other,
Ching however just went to bed, slept on one side and then turned his back and went to sleep.
There was no sexual intercourse between them that night. The same thing happened on the
second, third and fourth nights. In an effort to have their honey moon in a private place where
they can enjoy together during their first week as husband and wife they went to Baguio City.
But they did so together with Ching’s mother, uncle and nephew as they were all invited by her
husband. There was no sexual intercourse between them for four days in Baguio since Ching
avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair
located at the living room. They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since
May 22, 1988 (day of their marriage) until March 15, 1989 (ten months). But during this period
there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Gina claims that she did not even
see her husband’s private parts nor did he see hers. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag. Results were that Gina is
healthy, normal and still a virgin while Ching’s examination was kept confidential up to this time.
The Gina claims that her husband is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not show his
penis. She said she had observed him using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the cleansing
cream of his mother. She also said her husband only married her to acquire or maintain his
residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man
Ching’s version: he claims that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason of psychological
incapacity, the fault lies with Gina. He does not want their marriage annulled for reasons of (1)
that he loves her very much (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and
psychologically capable (3) 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. Ching
admitted that since his marriage to Gina there was no sexual contact between them. But, the
reason for this, according to the defendant, was that everytime he wants to have sexual
intercourse with his wife, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts,
she always removed his hands.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ching is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage
RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals in
rendering as VOID the marriage entered into by Ching and Gina on May 22, 1988. No costs.
RATIO: The Supreme Court held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual
intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity. If a spouse,
although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage
obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the
causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is
equivalent to psychological incapacity. One of the essential marital obligations under the Family
Code is “to procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children
through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage.” Constant non-fulfillment of this
obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the
senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill this marital obligation is equivalent
to psychological incapacity. While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to
live together, observer mutual love, respect and fidelity, the sanction therefore 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
cared less.” This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but
himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy that brings spouses wholeness and oneness.
Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which
enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.