Jimenez vs. Cañizares

Impotence as a ground for annulment of marriage must be proved by clear and indubitable evidence; the uncorroborated testimony of the spouse seeking annulment is insufficient to overcome the presumption in favour of potency, and the refusal of the other spouse to submit to a physical examination does not, by itself, give rise to an adverse inference.

Joel Jimenez and Remedios Cañizares were married on 3 August 1950 before a judge of the municipal court of Zamboanga City. After two nights and one day, Jimenez left the conjugal home. Almost five years later, he commenced an action for annulment of marriage on the ground that his wife was physically incapable of copulation.

• Nature of Action: Joel Jimenez sought a decree annulling his marriage to Remedios Cañizares under the Civil Code on the ground of the wife’s physical incapacity to engage in sexual intercourse.
• Allegations of Impotence: The complaint alleged that the orifice of defendant’s genitals was too small to allow penetration by a male organ; that the condition existed at the time of the marriage on 3 August 1950 and persisted thereafter; and that the husband left the conjugal home after two nights and one day because of the condition.
• Proceedings in the Trial Court: The wife was personally served with summons and a copy of the complaint but did not answer. Pursuant to Article 88 of the Civil Code, the trial court directed the city attorney to investigate collusion and intervene for the State. The court subsequently issued an order requiring the wife to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady physician and to present a medical certificate. The wife was granted additional time, with an explicit warning that non-compliance would result in her being deemed uninterested and that judgment would be based solely on the plaintiff’s evidence.
• Refusal to Undergo Examination: The wife did not undergo the medical examination. At the hearing, she was absent, and the plaintiff presented only his own testimony regarding her alleged impotence.
• Decree of Annulment: On 11 April 1957, the trial court granted the petition and annulled the marriage, relying exclusively on the husband’s uncorroborated testimony.
• Appeal: The city attorney, as intervenor for the Republic, moved for reconsideration, arguing that impotence had not been satisfactorily established, that the wife’s refusal did not prove the allegation, and that the decree would facilitate collusion. The motion was denied, and the Republic appealed.

• Proof of Impotence: Whether the uncorroborated testimony of the spouse seeking annulment is sufficient to establish the ground of impotence.
• Presumption of Potency: Whether the presumption in favour of potency applies and requires a higher quantum of proof before a marriage may be annulled for impotence.
• Effect of Refusal to Undergo Physical Examination: Whether the wife’s refusal to submit to a court-ordered medical examination gives rise to an adverse inference or presumption against her that dispenses with the need for further proof of impotence.

• Proof of Impotence: The decree was reversed because the lone testimony of the husband—a party interested in securing annulment—was insufficient to establish the abnormal condition of impotence. The law requires indubitable evidence to tear asunder the marital bond, and the uncorroborated account of the plaintiff did not meet that standard.
• Presumption of Potency: Potency is the normal condition; impotence is abnormal and must not be presumed. The presumption operates in favour of capacity for sexual intercourse, and the husband failed to rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence. The ruling in Marciano v. San Jose that “Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency” was applied.
• Effect of Refusal to Undergo Physical Examination: The wife’s refusal to submit to a medical examination did not give rise to the presumption that suppressed evidence would be adverse to her. The natural coyness, bashfulness, and modesty of Filipino women were sufficient to explain the refusal, and from such attitude no adverse inference could be drawn. Her failure to appear or be examined did not relieve the husband of his burden to prove impotence with indubitable evidence. The Court further noted that, while a physical examination could be compelled by the lower court without violating the right against self-incrimination because no criminal charge was involved, the failure to compel the examination did not convert the wife’s refusal into substantive proof of the allegation.

• Presumption of Potency — There is a legal presumption that every person is capable of sexual intercourse; impotence, being an abnormal and exceptional condition, is not presumed and must be affirmatively proved by the party alleging it.
• Burden of Proof in Annulment for Impotence — The ground of impotence must be established by clear and indubitable evidence. The uncorroborated and interested testimony of the spouse who seeks the annulment does not satisfy this standard because the State’s deep interest in the preservation of marriage demands a higher quantum of proof.
• Effect of Refusal to Undergo Physical Examination — The refusal of a spouse to submit to a court-ordered medical examination to determine impotence does not, by itself, create an adverse presumption or inference that the spouse is impotent. The natural modesty and shyness of women must be considered, and the refusal does not excuse the party alleging impotence from presenting the requisite indubitable evidence.
• Compelling Physical Examination and Self-Incrimination — A court may compel a party in an annulment case to undergo a physical examination for purposes of determining impotence without infringing the constitutional right against self-incrimination, because the proceeding is civil and the examination does not compel the party to be a witness against herself in a criminal offence.

• “Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is deeply interested. The state has surrounded it with safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The security and stability of the state are largely dependent upon it.”

• “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.”

• “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.”

• Marciano v. San Jose, 89 Phil. 62 — Cited for the controlling principle that impotence is an abnormal condition and the presumption is in favour of potency; the rule was applied to hold that the husband failed to rebut the presumption.

• Article 88, Civil Code (now substantially reproduced in the Family Code) — Imposed the duty on the court in annulment cases to take steps to prevent collusion and to order the prosecuting attorney to intervene for the State. The trial court acted pursuant to this article by directing the city attorney’s inquiry and intervention.
• Article III, Section 1, paragraph 18, 1935 Constitution (right against self-incrimination) — The Court clarified that compelling a spouse to submit to a physical examination in an annulment proceeding does not violate this provision because the party is not being compelled to testify against herself in a criminal case.

Chief Justice Paras, and Justices Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes (J.B.L.), Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Dizon. All concurred.