Jimenez vs.

Republic of the Philippines

Phil. Reports No. L-12790, August 31 1960
Mijares, J. / kam

SUBJECT MATTER: Effect of physical incapacity / impotence

CASE SUMMARY: This is an appeal from the judgment of CFI Zamboanga, filed by the city attorney.
The CFI Zamboanga has ruled to annul the marriage between Jimenez and Cañizares by relying solely on
the petitioner’s (Jimenez) evidence because of the absence and refusal of defendant to comply with the
CFI. Ground for annulment is impotency, and the SC held that “Impotency being an abnormal condition
should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency.” Case was remanded to lower court for
further proceedings in accordance with the SC’s decision.

DOCTRINES: “Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in
favor of potency.”

FACTS:
 August 3, 1950 – Joel Jimenez & Remedios Cañizares were married by a judge of municipal court.
 Jimenez discovered that the “orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the
penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation”. So Jimenez left the conjugal home two nights
& one day after they had been married
 June 7, 1955 – Jimenez filed a complaint in CFI Zamboanga City praying for annulment on the
ground quoted above.
 June 14, 1955 – Wife summoned & served with a copy of the complaint. She didn’t file an answer.
 Sept. 29, 1956 – City attorney was directed by CFI to intervene for the State to see that the evidence
for the plaintiff is not a frame-up, concocted or fabricated.
 Dec. 17, 1956 – CFI ordered requiring defendant to submit to a physical examination to determine
her physical capacity for copulation and to submit medical certificate afterwards.
 March 14, 1957 – Defendant was given additional 5 days to comply with Dec. 17 order with
warning that her failure to undergo medical exam would be deemed lack of interest on her part in
the case and that judgment upon the evidence presented by her husband would be rendered.
 Defendant was absent in the hearing so on April 11, 1957 the Court annulled their marriage.
Motion for Reconsideration:
 April 26, 1957 – city attorney filed for an MR upon these grounds:
(1) defendant’s impotency has not been established as required by law;
(2) that she had not been physically examined because of her refusal;
(3) that instead of annulling the marriage the Court should have punished her for contempt of court
and compelled her to do the physical exam;
(4) and that the decree (annulment) would open the door to married couples who want to end their
marriage to connive with each other just by alleging impotency of one of them.
 MR denied by CFI. Thus this appeal at the SC.

ISSUE: WON the marriage may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband
who claimed and testified that his wife was impotent. (NO)

HOLDING: The SC held that the wife’s impotency was not satisfactorily established since she abstained
from taking part in the proceedings. SC has considered that women of this country are shy & would not
submit to a physical exam unless compelled by competent authority. But SC said that they may do
without infringing on her constitutional right. She is not being compelled to be a witness against herself.
The lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is
insufficient to annul their marriage.

The decree (annulment) is set aside and the case remanded to lower court for further proceedings in
accordance to this decision, w/o pronouncement to costs.