Jimenez V Canizares 109 Phil 27

Republic of the Philippines After hearing, at which the defendant was not present, on 11 April 1957
SUPREME COURT the Court entered a decree annulling the marriage between the plaintiff
Manila and the defendant. On 26 April 1957 the city attorney filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decree thus entered, upon the ground, among
EN BANC others, that the defendant's impotency has not been satisfactorily
established as required by law; that she had not been physically
G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 examined because she had refused to be examined; that instead of
annulling the marriage the Court should have punished her for contempt
of court and compelled her to undergo a physical examination and submit
JOEL JIMENEZ, plaintiff-appellee,
a medical certificate; and that the decree sought to be reconsidered
vs.
would open the door to married couples, who want to end their marriage
REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, defendant.
to collude or connive with each other by just alleging impotency of one of
Republic of the Philippines, intervenor-appellant.
them. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed or that the wife be
subjected to a physical examination. Pending resolution of his motion, the
Acting Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Pacifico P. de city attorney timely appealed from the decree. On 13 May 1957 the
Castro for appellant. motion for reconsideration was denied.
Climaco, Ascarraga and Silang for appellee.
The question to determine is whether the marriage in question may be
PADILLA, J.: annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband who
claimed and testified that his wife was and is impotent. The latter did not
In a complaint filed on 7 June 1955 in the Court of First Instance of answer the complaint, was absent during the hearing, and refused to
Zamboanga the plaintiff Joel Jimenez prays for a decree annulling his submit to a medical examination.
marriage to the defendant Remedios Cañizares contracted on 3 August
1950 before a judge of the municipal court of Zamboanga City, upon the Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is deeply
ground that the office of her genitals or vagina was to small to allow the interested. The state has surrounded it with safeguards to maintain its
penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation; that the condition of purity, continuity and permanence. The security and stability of the state
her genitals as described above existed at the time of marriage and are largely dependent upon it. It is the interest of each and every member
continues to exist; and that for that reason he left the conjugal home two of the community to prevent the bringing about of a condition that would
nights and one day after they had been married. On 14 June 1955 the shake its foundation and ultimately lead to its destruction. The incidents
wife was summoned and served a copy of the complaint. She did not file of the status are governed by law, not by will of the parties. The law
an answer. On 29 September 1956, pursuant to the provisions of article specifically enumerates the legal grounds, that must be proved to exist by
88 of the Civil Code, the Court directed the city attorney of Zamboanga to indubitable evidence, to annul a marriage. In the case at bar, the
inquire whether there was a collusion, to intervene for the State to see annulment of the marriage in question was decreed upon the sole
that the evidence for the plaintiff is not a frame-up, concocted or testimony of the husband who was expected to give testimony tending or
fabricated. On 17 December 1956 the Court entered an order requiring aiming at securing the annulment of his marriage he sought and seeks.
the defendant to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been
physician to determine her physical capacity for copulation and to submit, satisfactorily established, becase from the commencement of the
within ten days from receipt of the order, a medical certificate on the proceedings until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking
result thereof. On 14 March 1957 the defendant was granted additional part therein. Although her refusal to be examined or failure to appear in
five days from notice to comply with the order of 17 December 1956 with court show indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the
warning that her failure to undergo medical examination and submit the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or
required doctor's certificate would be deemed lack of interest on her part be inferred because women of this country are by nature coy, bashful and
in the case and that judgment upon the evidence presented by her shy and would not submit to a physical examination unless compelled to
husband would be rendered. by competent authority. This the Court may do without doing violence to
and infringing in this case is not self-incrimination. She is not charged
with any offense. She is not being compelled to be a witness against
herself.1 "Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be
presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency."2 The lone testimony
of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse
is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as
husband and wife.
The decree appealed from is set aside and the case remanded to the
lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision,
without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,

J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Dizon, JJ. concur.
Footnotes
1
Section 1, paragraph 18, Article III of the Constitution.
2
Marciano vs. San Jose, 89 Phil., 62.

Jimenez V Canizares 109 Phil 27

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jimenez V Canizares 109 Phil 27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines After hearing, at which the defendant was not present, on 11 April 1957

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,

You might also like