Jimenez Vs Canizares

EN BANC proceedings until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking
part therein.
[G.R. No. L-12790. August 31, 1960.]
3. ID.; WOMAN’S REFUSAL FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; NOT
JOEL JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, Defendant. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. — Although the wife’s refusal to be examined
Republic of the Philippines, Intervenor-Appellant. or failure to appear in court show indifference on her part, yet from such
attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could
Acting Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Pacifico P. de not arise or be inferred, because woman of this country are by nature coy,
Castro for Appellant. bashful and shy and would not submit to a physical examination unless
compelled to by competent authority. This the court may do without doing
Climaco, Ascarraga & Silang for Appellee. violence to and infringing upon her constitutional right. A physical
examination 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.
SYLLABUS Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed.
4. ID.; ANNULMENT; PRESUMPTION OF POTENCY; HUSBAND’S LONE

TESTIMONY INSUFFICIENT. — The presumption is in favor of potency. The
1. MARRIAGE; ITS NATURE AND SANCTITY; SECURITY AND STABILITY OF
lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual
STATE. — Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community
intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them
is deeply interested. The state has surrounded it with safeguards to
together as husband and wife.
maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The security and stability of
the state are largely dependent upon it. It is in the interest and duty of each
and every member of the community to prevent the bringing about of a
condition that would shake its foundation and ultimately lead to its
destruction. The incidents of the status are governed by law, not by will of DECISION
the parties.
2. ID.; ANNULMENT; IMPOTENCY; LONE TESTIMONY OF HUSBAND; CASE AT

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

Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Jimenez Vs Canizares

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jimenez Vs Canizares

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 Vs Canizares

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC proceedings until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking

4. ID.; ANNULMENT; PRESUMPTION OF POTENCY; HUSBAND’S LONE

2. ID.; ANNULMENT; IMPOTENCY; LONE TESTIMONY OF HUSBAND; CASE AT

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L.,

You might also like