G.R. No. L-12790; August 31, 1960
Joel Jimenez, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Remedios Cañizares, defendant. Republic of the Philippines, intervenor-appellant.

FACTS

Joel Jimenez filed a complaint on June 7, 1955, seeking the annulment of his marriage to Remedios Cañizares, which was solemnized on August 3, 1950. The ground for annulment was the alleged physical incapacity of the defendant, specifically that “the office of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation,” a condition claimed to exist at the time of marriage and continuing thereafter. Jimenez alleged he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after the marriage. The defendant was duly summoned but did not file an answer. Pursuant to Article 88 of the Civil Code, the court directed the city attorney to intervene to prevent collusion. The court later ordered the defendant to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady physician. The defendant failed to comply with this order despite a warning. After a hearing where the defendant was absent, the trial court rendered a decree annulling the marriage on April 11, 1957. The city attorney filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the defendant’s impotency was not satisfactorily established, that her refusal to be examined should have been met with contempt proceedings to compel her, and that the decree could encourage collusion. The motion was denied, and the city attorney, on behalf of the Republic, appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the marriage may be annulled based solely on the lone testimony of the husband claiming his wife is impotent, given the wife’s failure to answer the complaint, absence at the hearing, and refusal to submit to a medical examination.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the decree of annulment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that marriage is an institution in which the state has a deep interest, surrounded by safeguards to maintain its purity and permanence. The legal grounds for annulment must be proved by indubitable evidence. The lone testimony of the husband, who is an interested party seeking to end the marriage, is insufficient to establish the wife’s impotency. The wife’s refusal to be examined or to appear in court, while showing indifference, does not give rise to a presumption arising from suppression of evidence, as women in the country are “by nature coy, bashful and shy” and would not willingly submit to such an examination unless compelled by competent authority. The Court noted that such compulsion in this case would not violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination, as she was not charged with an offense. The Court held that “impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency.” Therefore, the alleged impotency was not satisfactorily established by the evidence presented.