Is Failure to Make Love During the Marriage a Ground to Declare a Marriage Void?

Will a marriage be properly declared a void marriage if the husband and wife fails to have sexual congregation during their marriage?

The Supreme Court answered this question in a decided 1997 case entitled “Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court ofAppeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi”.

In the said case, the couple were married in May 22,1988 at the Manila Cathedral in Intramuros, Manila. Everything was like a normal wedding gathering thereafter. After the said important event, the couple went to the husband’s mother’s house. Of course, at this moment, a honeymoon is expected of the couple.

But this did not happen.

As a tradition, newlyweds are expected to make love after marriage. In the said case, the husband went to bed with his wife, turned his back and slept. This happened on the second, third and fourth nights. This went on until their separation on March 15,1989. Yes, that is close to almost one year of sleeping together – just sleeping.

This situation may be excused once (blame it on the weather, the place, etc.) but when it happens the second, third time, there is something seriously wrong with your partner, mentally speaking.

Baffled, the wife went to Court to file a case of annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The trial court decided the case in favor of the wife. On appeal by the husband, the Court of Appeals decided still in favor of the wife.

How did the Supreme Court decided the case?

The Supreme Court held that the marriage is a void marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The Family Code provides that procreation of children is the basic ends of marriage. The senseless refusal to fulfill this duty by the husband is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

The Supreme Court said in the case,

“After almost ten months of cohabitation, the admission that the husband is reluctant or unwilling to perform the sexual 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 Code.”

It further stated,

“This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of respondent appellate court.”

The Supreme Court, in the case’s last part, made poetry, stating;

“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 which 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. “