Friday, August 11, 2017

Refusal to have sexual communion with spouse and psychological incapacity.

"x x x.

"But after trial, the RTC declared the marriage of Paulo and Minda on the ground of psychological incapacity, On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. Paulo still questioned the decision before the Supreme Court contending, among others that his refusal to have sexual communion with Minda is not a psychological incapacity.

But the Supreme Court said that Paulo’s claim is not correct. He admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten months of cohabitation although 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 demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to marriage as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code. Love is useless unless it is shared with another. The cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say “I could not have cared less” This is so because an un-given self is an unfulfilled self. In the natural order, it is the sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. It is a gift and a participation in the mystery of procreation; a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.

Marital union is a two way process. An expressive interest in each others’ feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is for two consenting adults who view their relationship with love, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Gina Lao-Tsoi G.R. 119190, January 16, 1997)"

x x x."