JIMENEZ VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

By -

JIMENEZ VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

109 Phil 273


FACTS:
            Plaintiff Joel Jimenez filed a complaint praying of a decree annulling his marriage with Remedios Canizares. He claimed that the orifice of her genitals was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation. He also claimed that the condition of her genitals existed at the time of marriage and continues to exist. The wife was summoned and served with a copy of the complaint but she did not file an answer. The court entered an order requiring defendant to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady physician to determine her physical capacity for copulation. Defendant did not submit herself to the examination and the court entered a decree annulling the marriage. The City Attorney filed a Motion for Reconsideration, among the grounds that the defendant’s impotency has not been satisfactorily established as required by law; that she had not been physically examined because she refused to be examined.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that his wife is impotent.

HELD:
            The law specifically enumerates the legal grounds that must be 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. 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.
            Although her refusal to be examined 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 not arise or be inferred because women of this country are by nature coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to a physical examination unless compelled to by competent authority.
            A physical examination in this case is not self-incriminating. She is not charged with any offense . She is not being compelled to be a witness against herself.
            “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.
Ruling: 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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PNB vs CA & Gueco et al

By -
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. COURT OF APPEALS,RITA GUECO TAPNIO,CECILIO GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY FACTS: Mrs. Rita Gueco Tapnio was indebted to the Philippine National Bank at San Fernando,Pampanga for the total sum of P2,379.91.  Her indebtedness was a crop loan and was secured by the mortgage on her standing crap including her sugar quota allocation for the agricultural year corresponding to the said standing crop. During agricultural year 1956-1957 Mrs. Tapnio had an excess in her export sugar quota, 1000 piculs which she does not need. Mr. Jacobo Tuazon, a planter harvest less than his sugar quota. Mrs. Tapnio agreed to allow Mr. Tuazon to use her excess sugar quota for the consideration of P2,500.00.  Since the quota of Mrs. Tapnio was mortgaged to the PNB, the contract of lease that Mrs. Tapnio and Mr. Tuazon agreed into had to be approved by the bank. The branch manager required the parties to raise the consideration to P2,800.00 i...
Read more

LAGUNZAD vs.VDA. DE GONZALES & CA

By -
MANUEL LAGUNZAD, petitioner,  vs. MARIA SOTO VDA. DE GONZALES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. L-32066 August 6, 1979 FACTS Petitioner Manuel Lagunzad, a newspaperman, began the production of a movie entitled "The Moises Padilla Story" portraying the life of Moises Padilla, a mayoralty candidate of the Nacionalista Party for the Municipality of Magallon, Negros Occidental and for whose murder, Governor Rafael Lacson, a member of the Liberal Party then in power and his men were tried and convicted.  The emphasis of the movie was on the public life of Moises Padilla, there were portions which dealt with his private and family life including the portrayal in some scenes, of his mother, Maria Soto, private respondent herein, and of one "Auring" as his girl friend. Padilla’s half sister, for and in behalf of her mother, Vda.de Gonzales, objected to the "exploitation" of his life and demanded in writing for certain changes, corrections ...
Read more

Co vs Court of Appeals

By -
ALBINO S. CO,  petitioner,  vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  respondents. G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993 Facts:                 In connection with an agreement to salvage and refloat asunken vessel — and in payment of his share of the expenses of the salvage operations therein stipulated — petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT."                 A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. Th...
Read more