JIMENEZ vs CAÑIZARES, 109 SCRA 273

G.R. No. L-12790, August 31, 1960

JOEL JIMENEZ, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, defendant.
Republic of the Philippines, intervenor-appellant.

PADILLA, J.:

DOCTRINE

Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is deeply interested. The state has surrounded it with safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The law specifically enumerates the legal grounds, that must be proved to exist by indubitable evidence, to annul a marriage.

FACTS

Joel Jimenez filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Remedios Canizares on grounds that the orifice of the genital of the defendant was too small to allow penetration of the male organ for copulation.

The defendant was summoned and served a copy of the complaint, but she did not file an answer. She also failed to comply with the order of the Court to subject herself to a physical examination to determine her capacity to engage in sexual intercourse. Despite being granted an extension of time with a warning that failure to comply would mean her lack of interest to take part in the case and that judgment will be rendered based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, respondent still did not comply with the order of the Court.

After hearing, at which the defendant is not present, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga entered the decree annulling the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. 

ISSUE

Whether or not the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband.

RULING

No. In the case at bar, the annulment of the marriage in question was decreed upon the sole testimony of the husband who was expected to give testimony tending or aiming at securing the annulment of his marriage he sought and seeks. Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactorily established, because from the commencement of the proceedings until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking part therein.

"Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency." 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.

Full text: G.R. No. L-12790 (lawphil.net)