JIMENEZ VS. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. L-12790, August 31, 1960
Plaintiff-Appellee: Joel Jimenez
Defendant: Remedios Canizares
Intervenor-Appellant: Republic of the Philippines
Ponente: J. Padilla
Facts:
In a complaint filed on June 7, 1955, in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zamboanga, the plaintiff prays for a decree annulling his marriage to the defendant with the following facts:
(a) Such marriage was contracted on August 3, 1950 before a judge of the municipal court of Zamboanga City;
(b) The ground for the annulment was that the office of the defendant’s genitals was to small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation;
(c) On June 14, 1955, the defendant was summoned and served a copy of the complaint. She did not file an answer.
(d) On September 29, 1956, pursuant to Article 88 of the Civil Code, the Court directed the city attorney of Zamboanga to inquire whether there was a collusion, to intervene for the State to see that the evidence of the plaintiff is not a frame-up, concocted, or fabricated;
(e) On December 17, 1956, the Court entered an order requiring the defendant to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady physician to determine her physical capacity for copulation and to submit, within ten (10) days from the receipt of the order, a medical certificate on the result thereof.
(f) On March 14, 1957, the defendant was granted additional five (5) days to comply in relation to the order issued in the preceding number.
(g) On April, 11, 1957, the defendant did not show. The Court deemed lack of interest on her part in the case. The Court entered a decree annulling the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant.
On April 26, 1957, the city attorney filed a motion for reconsideration of the decree thus entered upon the ground that:
(a) The defendant’s impotency was not satisfactorily established as required by law;
(b) That instead of annulling the marriage the Court should have punished her for contempt of court and compelled her to undergo a physical examination and submit a medical certificate; and
(c) That the decree sough to be reconsidered would open the door to married couples, who want to end their marriage to collude or connive with each other by just alleging impotency of one of them.
He prayed that the complaint be dismissed that the wife be ordered for a physical examination.
On May 13, 1957, the motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues:
The issue is whether or not the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that his wife was and is impotent.
Held:
No. 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 incidents of the status are governed by law, not by will of the parties. 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,
The decree is set aside and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with the decision, without pronouncement as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment