REPUBLIC v.

MOLINA
GR NO 108763 February 13, 1997
Petitioner: RP
Respondent: CA and Roridel Olaviano Molina
Nature of the Case: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA
Ponente: Panganiban, J.
Issue: Incorrect and erroneous interpretation of the phrase psychological incapacity
Facts:
1) Petition for review on certiorari challenging the decision of CA affirming in toto the decision of
RTC which declared the marriage of respondent Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina void ab
initio on the ground of psychological incapacity
2) April 14, 1985 at san Agustin Church: married
3) Son: Andre O. Molina
4) after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility
spent more time with peers and friends with whom he squandered his money
depended on his parents for aid and assistance
never honest with wife regarding finances
resulting in frequent quarrels
5) Feb 1986: Reynaldo relived from job
6) October 1986: intense quarrel- relationship was estranged
7) March 1987: Roridel resigned from job in manila and went to live w/ parents in Baguio City
8) Reynaldo left Roridel and their child and abandoned them since then
9) August 28, 1989: Reynaldo admitted they could no longer live together
Contended that misunderstandings were due to:
a) Roridels strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after
marriage
b) Roridels refusal to perform some of her marital duties (cooking meals)
c) Roridels failure to run the household and handle finances
10) Witnesses for Roridel: Rosemarie ventura and maria Leonora padilla (friends); Ruth Lalas
(social worker) and Dr. teresita Hidalgo Sison (psychiatrist of BGH)
RTC: declared marriage VOID
CA: denied petitioners appeal and AFFIRMED decision of RTC
DECISION OF SC: Petition is meritorious. The petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel olaviano and Reynaldo Molina subsists and
remains valid.
REASONS:
1) Leouel Santos vs. CA: Vitug ruled: psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a
mental (not physical) incapacity and intendment of law is confined to the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage; must be characterized by: 1) gravity; 2)
juridical antecedence and 3) incurability
2) What appears in this case is more of a difficulty if not outright refusal or neglect in
the performance of marital obligations
3) Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise
constitute psychological incapacity
4) GUIDELINES IN THE INTERPRETATION and APPLICATION OF ART 36 of FC
a) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any
doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage
and against its dissolution and nullity
b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: 1) medically or clinically
identified; 2) alleged in the complaint; 3) sufficiently proven by experts; 4) clearly
explained in the decision
c) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage
d) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable

e) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage
f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Art 68-71 of the FC as
regards to husband and wife as well as Arts 220,221, and 225 of FC in regard t parents
and children
g) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Phils while not controlling or decisive should be given respect by our
courts
h) He trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state
HERNANDEZ vs. CA
GR No 126010 December 8, 1999
Petitioner: Lucita Estrella Hernandez
Respondent: CA and Mario C. Hernandez
Nature of the CASE: petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Issue: WON the marriage of petitioner and private respondent should be annulled on the
ground of private respondents psychological incapacity
Facts:
1) CA affirming the decision of RTC which dismissed the petition for annulment of marriage filed
by petitioner
2) January 1, 1981: petitioner and private respondent married (Silang Catholic Parich Church,
Cavite)
3) Three children born: Maie (may 3, 1982); Lyra (May 22, 1985) and Marian (June 15, 1989)
4) July 10, 1992: filed complaint RTC Br 18 tagaytay City annulment of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity
5) ALLEGATIONS
Private respondent failed to perform his obligation to support family and contribute to
management of household
Devoting most of time engaging in drinking sprees w/ friends
Cohabited with other women though married with whom he had illegitimate children
Because of his promiscuity private respondent endangered her health by infecting her with
sexually transmitted disease
PR irresponsible. Immature and unprepared for duties of married life
Ordered to give support to their three children P9000 every month; she be awarded
custody of their children and she be adjudged sole owner of parcel of land (Don Gregorio
Subd, BUcal dasmarinas Cavite) as well as jeep which private respondent took with him
when he left conjugal home on June 12, 1992
Not close to their children
6) Met in 1977 at Phil Christian University (petitioner 5 years older than respondent-teacher and
student)
Respondent continued studies after marriage supported by parents and petitioner
Aside form her salary augmented their income by doing sideline businesses
Respondent left but received again by the petitioner to save their marriage
Smoking, drinking, gambling and womanizing became worse
Once beaten by husband when she confronted her about Tess confined at De LA sale
University Medical Center (cerebral concussion)
Oct 1992; petitioner learned that respondent left for middle east and since then
whereabouts had been unknown
-

RTC DECISION: dismissing the petition for annulment of marriage

What were mentioned were not ground for annulment but for legal separation (art 55 of
FC)
CA: affirmed decision of RTC (January 30, 1996) quoted Santos vs CA
Acts and attitudes complained happened after the marriage and there is no proof that the
same have already existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage to constitute
psychological incapacity under Art 36 of FC

DECISION OF SC: Petition is DENIED, decision of CA AFFIRMED.

REASONS:
1) Differentiated Voidable (Art 46) , Void marriage and legal separation (Art 55)
2) Petitioner failed to establish the fact that at the time of the marriage respondent was suffering
from a psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to assume the essential
duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities
3) Quoted Republic vs CA: root cause of psychological incapacity.
4) Expert testimony should have been presented
5) Separate proceeding for other contentions (custody, support etc)
AMOR-CATALAN cs CA
GR NO 167109 February 6, 2007
Petitioner: felicitas Amor-Catalan
Respondents: CA, Orlando B. catalan and Merope E Braganza
Nature of the Case: petition for review on decision of CA
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
Issue:
Facts:
1) CA reversed decision of RTC of dagupan City declaring the marriage between respondents
Orlando B. catalan and Merope Braganza void on the ground of bigamy and the denied motion
for reconsideration
2) June 4, 1950: mabini, Pangasinan; married
3) Migrated to the US and allegedly became naturalized citizens of US
4) After 38 years of marriage, divorced in Aril 1988
5) June 16, 1988: Orlando married Merope in calasiao, pangasinan
6) Contending that said marriage was bigamous; Merope has subsisting marriage with Eusebio
Bristol, petitioner filed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with damages in the RTC of
Dagupan
7) Respondents filed motion to dismiss but denied
RTC: judgment in favor or petitioner; subsequent marriage of Merope Braganza with Orlando catalan is
declared null and void
Defendants jointly pay moral damages (P300,000) and exemplary damages (P200,000) and attorney s
fees (P50,000) including cost of suit; donation in consideration of marriage is ordered revoked and the
property donated is ordered awarded to the heirs of Juliana Branganza
CA: GRANT the appeal and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the appealed decision, civil case DISMISSED;
motion for reconsideration denied
ISSUES:
1) Whether petitioner has the required standing in court to question the nullity of the marriage
between respondents
2) Whether the failure of the court of appeals to declare the questioned marriage void constitutes
reversible error
DECISION OF SC: Case is REMANDED to the trial court for its proper disposition
a) If it is proven that a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow
respondents remarriage, then the TC should declare respondents marriage as bigamous and
void ab initio but reduce the amount of moral damages from P300,000 to P50,000 and
exemplary damages from P200,000 to P25,000
b) If it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then
the trial court must dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of marriage on the ground
that petitioner Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same
REASONS:
1) Need to ascertain the allegations that they were naturalized in the US and whether they had
actually been judicially granted a divorce decree
2) If these are proven, then this case is not dealing with Filipino citizens whose marital status is
governed by the FC and our CC but with American citizens who secured their divorce in the US
and who are considered by their national law to be free to contract another marriage
3) Two kinds of divorce: a) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii- terminates the marriage; and
b) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro- suspends and leaves the bond in full force

4) A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such
decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner
5) Need to present divorce evidence and foreign law for deciding on this matterto know if she
has personality or standing in this case
6) One with Proper interest to file a casea petition to declare the nullity of marriage like any
other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest and
mist be based on a cause of action (Sec 2a of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages)
7) Petitioners personality to file petition cannot be ascertained because of absence of divorce
decree and foreign law allowing itto know if respondent is allowed to remarry after a divorce
or not

ZAMORA vs. CA
GR NO 141917 February 7, 2007
Petitioner: Bernardino S. Zamora
Respondent: CA and Norma Mercado Zamora
Nature of the Case: appeal by certiorari to annul and set aside the decision and rule of CA
Ponente: Azcuna, J.
Issue: Whether there can be a declaration of nullity of the marriage between petitioner and private
respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity
Facts:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

CA affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage

June 4, 1970: married in Cebu City
Union did not produce a child
1972: private respondent left for US to work as nurse, and later became a citizen (1989)
Returned in the pHils once in a while
Petitioner filed complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage anchored on the alleged
psychological incapacity of private respondent
7) Alleged that wife is horrified by the mere thought of having children as evidenced by the fact
that she had not born a petitioner a child; alleged she abandoned petitioner and lived in the
US; lived together only for not more than three years
8) Respondent denied allegations:
She do not refuse to have a child
She loves children
Petitioner is unfaithful to herhad two affairs with different women and he begot atleast
three children with them
RTC: June 22, 1995: nothing in the evidence showed respondent is suffering from psychological
incapacityComplaint DISMISSED
CA: August 5, 1999: affirming the ruling of the trial court (Santos vs CA and Republic vs CA and
Molina); denied motion for reconsideration
DECISION OF SC: petition is DENIED. The decision and resolution of CA dated August 5, 1999 and
January 24, 2000 are AFFIRMED.
REASONS:
1) It is true that in Santos vs CA no specific mention of presentation of expert opinionbut it is
important is the presence (Marcos vs Marcos) of evidence that can adequately establish the
partys psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned
need not be resorted to
2) Sec 2(d) of AM No 01-11-10 SC: Rule on declaration of Absolute nullity of Void Marriages and
ANnulment of Voidable Marriageswhat to allegethe complete facts should allege the
physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the
celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged

FERRARIS vs. FERRARIS

GR NO 162368 July 17, 2006
Petitioner: Ma. Armida Perez-ferraris
Respondent: Brix Ferraris
Nature of the Case: Motion for reconsideration of the decision of the SC
POnente: Ynares- Santiago, J.
Issue: WON psychological incapacity exists in a given case
Facts:
1) Reconsideration of the resolution dated June 9, 2004 denying petition for review on certiorari
of the decision of CA
RTC: denying petition for declaration of nullity of petitioners marriage with Brix Ferraris
Suffering from epilepsy does not amount to psychological incapacity and evidence on
record were insufficient to prove infidelity
CA: affirmed in toto the judgment of the trial court
Evidence did not establish proof of psychological incapacity not shown that his defects
were incurable and already present at the inception of marriage
Dr. dayans testimony failed to establish how she arrived at the conclusion that the
respondent has mixed personality disorder and failed to show that there was a natal or
supervening disabling factor or an adverse integral element in respondents character that
effectively incapacitated him from accepting and complying w/ essential marital
obligations
DECISION OF SC: motion for reconsideration is DENIED; motion for reconsideration of the resolution
dated June 9, 2004 denying the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to
sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error is DENIED WITH FINALITY
REASONS:
1) Issue of WON psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of marriage
depends crucially on the facts of the case
2) Psychological incapacity- refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before
the celebration of the marriage; malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of marital bond one is about to assume; most
serious cases of personality disorder clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability
to give meaning and significance to a marriage
3) During the relatively short period of time, petitioner was happy and contented with her life in
the company of respondent
4) Problems began when petitioner started doubting respondents infidelity
5) Respondents alleged mixed personality disorder, the leaving the house attitude whenever
they quarreled, violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, sexual infidelity, abandonment and
lack of support and his preference to spend more time with his bandmates than his family, are
not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to
assume the essential obligations of marriage
6) Psychological defects spoken here were more of a difficulty if not outright refusal or
neglect in the performance of some marital obligations and that a mere showing of
irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitute psychological
incapacity
7) It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as
married persons, it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to
some psychological not physical illness
8) Sanctity of marriage stated in Constitutionprotected by the state
9) Art 36 should not be confused with divorce law nor equated with legal separation

VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

AQUINO vs. DELIZO

No L- 15853 July 27, 1960
Petitioner: Fernando Aquino
Respondent: Conchita delizo
Nature of the case: Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the CA
Ponente: Gutierrez- david, J.
Issue:
Facts:
1) CA affirmed RTC decision which dismissed the petitioners complaint for annulment of his marriage w/ respondent
2) Based on the ground of FRAUDalleged that defendant at the date of her marriage to plaintiff, herein petitioner, on
Dec 27, 1954 concealed from the latter her pregnancy by another man
3) Sometime in April 1955, about four months after marriagegave birth to a child
4) Defendant claimed that child was conceived out of lawful wedlock between her and the plaintiff
5) Only document presented was marriage contract between parties
6) June 16, 1956: no birth certificate presented to show that child was born within 180 days after marriagedismissed
the complaint
7) Through verified petition to reopen reception of additional evidence, plaintiff tried to present birth certificates and
delivery of child on April 26, 1955failed to secure earlier due to excusable negligencepetition was DENIED
CA: court erred in denying the motion for reception of additional evidencesbut still DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT
- However, on the theory, it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have had sexual intercourse during
their engagement so that the child could be their own
- Finding unbelievable plaintiffs claim that he did not notice or even suspect that defendant was pregnant when
he married her
8) Motion for reconsideration filedremanding case to trial court for new evidences and trial
9) CA ordered defendant and Assistant Prov Fiscal of Rizal to answer motiondefendants and fiscal failed to file an
answer
10) Motion was denied; thus this petition
DECISION OF SC: DISMISSAL cannot be sustained; The decision complained of is SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to the
court a quo for new trial
REASONS:
1) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband
constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage (Art 85 par (4) in relation to Art 86 par (3))
2) BUccat vs Buccat is different; here defendant wife was alleged to be ore than four months pregnant at the time of
marriagepregnancy not readily apparent especially she was naturally plump or fat as alleged by plaintiff
3) Medically: it is said that it is only on the 6 th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the womans abdomen
reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent
4) Appellate court said it was not impossible for parties to have had sexual intercourse before marriagepurely
conjectural and finds no support or justification in the record
5) Evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial might be sufficient to sustain fraud alleged by plaintiff
ANAYA vs. PALAROAN
NO L- 27930 November 26, 1970
Plaintiff-appellant: Aurora A. Anaya
Defendant-Appellee: Fernando O. Palaroan
Nature of the Case: Appeal from an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations court
Issue: WON the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-martial relationship with another woman is a ground for
annulment of marriage
Ponente: reyes, J.B.L., J.
Facts:
1) Appeal from an order of dismissal issued by the J and D Relations court of a complaint for annulment of marriage
2) Dec 4, 1953: married
3) Fernando filed action for annulment on 7 January 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and
intimidation
4) Auroras Counterclaim: Fernando has divulged to aurora that several months prior to their marriage. He had premarital relationship with a close relative of his, and that the non-divulgement to her of aforementioned pre-marital
secret on the part of the defendant that definitely wrecked their marriage
5) Plaintiff herein from going through marriage that was solemnized between them constituted FRAUD in obtaining her
consent, within the contemplation of No. 4 of Art 35 of CCprayed for annulment of their marriage
DEFENDANTs CLAIMS:
1) Denied allegations of pre-marital relationship with close relative
2) Under no circumstance would he live with Aurora, as he escaped from her and from her relatives the day ff marriage
3) Denied having committed any fraud with her

4) DEfense lack of action and estoppel

CFI Manila: dismissed complaint upholding validity of their marriage; realizing that Auroras allegations of the fraud was legally
insufficient to invalidate her marriage and denied reconsideration
SC: agree with lower court; appealed order is AFFIRMED
REASONS:
1) For fraud as a vice of consent in marriage which may be a cause for its annulment come under Art 85 No 4 of the CC
and Art 86 specific frauds given (misrepresentation as to identity; non disclosure of a previous conviction and
concealment of pregnancy)
2) Non concealment of a husbands premarital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated
circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment
3) It is further excluded by last paragraph that no other misrepresentation of deceit as to chastity shall give ground
for an action to annul a marriage
4) For second set of averments of plaintiff (pretended love and absence of intention to perform duties of consortium)is
an entirely new and additional cause of actionshe cannot change or amend previous alleged causes of action
much more not allowed to introduce new allegations
5) Wedding was celebrated in Dec of 1953 and this ground was only pleaded in 1966, it must be declared already barred

SISON vs TE LAY LI
NO 7037- May 7, 1952
Plaintiff and Appellee: Juanita Sison
Defendant and Appellant: Te Lay Li
Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Davao
Ponente: Reyes, JBL, J.
Issue;
Facts:
1) Appeal from a decision of CFI Davao declaring the two marriages celebrated one after another on April 28, 1949 null
and void on the ground of plaintiffs consent was obtained through force and intimidation employed upon her by her
father
2) Morning of April 28, 1949civil wedding before Judge Delfin Hofilena of MC of Davao, afternoonremarried in
accordance with rites of Republic of China before Chinese Consul S.T. Mih in office in Davao City
3) Plaintiffs testimony:
- Defendant never wooed her
- Wedding arranged by father
- Father whipped her often as she opposed marriage
- Resorted to beating her
- She ran away from home but found by father and promised she will not force her again
- But renewed subject of marriagehanded her a knife telling her to choose between her life of hisbecause of
fear that her father might kill her she agreed to the marriage
- Testimony corroborated by mother and Epifania del Riorelative of her mother
- She lived with her husband in his parents home but considered him a stranger since she doesnt love him
- She was kept a prisoner in the house; she never occupied the same bed with husband
- Never had sexual intercourse except on June 1, 1949 forced by husband using a knifeshe mustered courage to
escape from her husbands home
4) DEFENDANTS CLAIMS:
- Marriages were regular and legal
- Entered into marriage freely and voluntarily
- Plaintiff not kept a prisoner
- Plaintiff would everyday ask her father in law to give her and her husband their own house and business
- She slapped heronly when she ran away with P1200 and when asked where she came from she retorted it
was none of his business
CFI: finding the plaintiffs marriage consummated only by intimidation and force and that plaintiff never for a moment
acquiesced to the status of a wife to the defendant and declared two marriages between them null and void; defendant
ordered to return the P1200 and whatever personal belongings the plaintiff had left in their house

Witnesses; Judge Delfin Hofilena for defendant but testified in cross examination that plaintiff came to him and confided that
she was being compelled to marry a man she did not like
Te Seng: plaintiff ran away, her father asked help from him to take daughter home; confessed that daughter did not want to
marry the defendant
DECISION OF SC: The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the sole modification that the amount ordered return to plaintiff
should be P1248 according to evidence and not P1200.
REASONS:
1) While it is true that it is the policy of the law to maintain the marriage ties, when it is amply proved that the
marriage is effected through duress and intimidation and w/o the consent and against the will of one of the parties,
there are no ties to be preserved and the marriage should consequently be annulled
2) There was no voluntary cohabitation on the wifes part

ViLLANUEVA vs. CA
GR NO 132955 October 27, 2006
Petitioner: Orlando Villanueva
Respondents: CA and Lilia Canalita- Villanueva
Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA
Ponente: Ynares- Santiago, J.
Issue;
1) Whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent
2) Whether petitioner should be liable for moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees and costs
Facts:
1)

Petition for review of decision of CA affirming with modification the decision of RTC of Valenzuela, MM dismissing
petitioners petition for annulment of his marriage to private respondent and ordering him to pay for moral and
exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs
2) April 13, 1988: married Puerto Princesa Palawan
3) Nov 17, 1992:Orlando filed petition for annulment: alleged that threats of violence and duress forced him to marry Lilia
who was already pregnant; he claims:
- He did no get her pregnant prior to the marriage
- He never cohabited with her after the marriage
- He later learned that private respondents child died during delivery on August 29, 1988
4) LILIAS ANSWERS:
- Petitioner freely and voluntarily married her
- Petitioner stayed with her in Palawan for almost a month
- Petitioner wrote letters to her after he returned to Manila
- Petitioner knew about the progress of her pregnancywhich ended in their son being born prematurely
- Prayed for payment of moral damages and exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs

RTC: dismissed the above complaint; ordering plaintiff to pay the damages, (P100,000 moral; 50,000 exemplary and P20,000
Attorneys fees and costs)
CA: AFFIRMED the trial courts decision and the award of attorneys fees and costs but reduced gthe moral and exemplary
damages to P50,000 and P25,000.; denied petitioners motion for reconsideration
DECISION OF SC: petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Decision of CA affirming modification of the decision of RTC Valenzuela MM BR
172 dismissing petitioners petition for annulment of his marriage is AFFIRMED. However the award of moral and exemplary
damages is DELETED for lack of basis.
REASONS:
1) Affirmed that findings of CA show that petitioner freely and voluntarily married private respondent and that no
threats or intimidation, duress or violence compelled him to do so
2) After a span of 4 years and 8 months when Orlando took serious step to have the marriage annulledto get
favorable judgment that would bring about his acquittal in a bigamy case pending against him
3) Several incidents cited: well-grounded fear and imminent danger: phone calls harassing him, three men at premises of
UE after his classes; threatening presence of a certain Ka Celso (member of NPA) hired by plaintiff to accompany him
to go to Palawannot convincingsecurity guard-knows how to protect or defend himself
4) Fraudmade to believe that she was pregnant with his child when they got marriedhe could not have impregnated
her because he did not have erection during their trystoutright lie

5) At the light of appellants admission that he had sexual intercourse with his wife in January 1988and his failure to
attribute latters pregnancy to any other men, appellant cannot complain that he was deceived by appellee into
marrying her
6) Lack of cohabitation per se is not a ground to annul a marriage
7) Agree to private respondents claim for attorneys fees but delete the award of moral and exemplary damages for
lack of factual and legal basisnothing in the records or in appealed decision that would support this award

JIMENEZ vs CANIZARES
NO L- 12790 August 31, 1960
Plaintiff and Appelle: Joel Jimenez
Defendant and Appellant: Remedios Canizares and Republic of Phils Intervenor
Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of CFI of Zamboanga City
Ponente: Padilla, J.
Issue: The question to determine is Whether the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength only of the lone
testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that his wide was and is impotent. The latter did not answer the
complaint, was absent during hearing and refused to submit to medical examination
Facts:
1) Complaint field Joel Jimenez prays for a decree annulling his marriage to defendant
2) Married 3 august 1950 before judge of MC of Zamboanga City
3) Ground: orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for
copulation; that the condition of her genitals as described existed at the time of their marriage and continues to exist;
and that for this reason he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after they had been married
4) Dec 17 1956: court entered an order requiring defendant to submit to physical examination by a competent lady
physician to determine her physical capacity for copulation and to submit w/in ten days from receipt of order a
medical certificate
5) March 14, 1957: granted additional 5 days to comply with order of dec 17 with warning that failure to undergo medical
examination and submit required certificate would be deemed lack of interest in the case and that judgment would
be rendered upon presentation of evidence of husband
CFI: 11 April 1957: hearing, defendant is not present: Judgment: Decree Annulling the marriage between plaintiff and
defendant
6) 26 april 1957: city attorney intervened: filed motion for reconsiderationthat the defendants impotency has not been
satisfactorily established as required by law; she had not been physically examined because she refused to be
examined; instead of annulling the marriage the court should have punished her for contempt of court and compelled
her to undergo physical examination and submit med cert
7) He prayed that complaint be dismissed or that the wife be subjected to a physical examination
8) 13 May 1957; motion for reconsideration was denied
DECISION OF SC: Decree appealed from is SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to lower court for further proceedings in
accordance with this decision
REASONS:
1) Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is deeply interestedstate has surrounded it with
safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence
2) The incidents of status are governed by law and not by will of parties
3) Presumption is that 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
4) This the court may do w/o infringing upon her constitutional rightphysical examination does not entail selfincrimination
5) Presumption is in favor of potency

SARAO vs GUEVARRA
No 4264 May 31, 1940

Plaintiff and appellee: _________ Sarao

Defendant and Appelle: Pilar Guevara
Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of laguna
Ponente: Reyes, A. J,
Issue: NO reason in disturbing the decision appealed from. Decision CONFIRMED.
Facts:
1) Appeal from decision of CFI dismissing plaintiffs complaint for annulment of marriage in the ground of impotency

2) Married: June 3, 1936: Manila

3) Afternoon: plaintiff tried to have carnal knowledge but defendant asked to wait for the evening
4) Night came: plaintiff again approached defendantthough he found orifice of her vagina sufficiently large for his
organ, she complained of pains of her private parts and he notices oozing therefrom some purulent matter offensive
to the smell
5) Upon advice of physiciandefendant submitted to operation (august 7, 1936) and as medical verdict that the uterus
and the ovaries were bound to be effected with tumorsurgically removed with consent of plaintiff
6) Rendered defendant incapable of procreation but did not incapacitate her to copulate
7) Under marriage law: marriage may be annulled if the party, was at the time of marriage, physically incapable of
entering into the married state and such incapacity remains incurable
8) Plaintiff wants to construe phrase of physically incapable of entering into married state into incapacity to procreate
9) US generally held that the meaning on impotency is not the ability to procreate but the inability to copulate
10) Defect must be of copulation not reproductionbarrenness will not invalidate the marriage
11) Defendant is not impotent in this caseremoval of parts rendered her sterile but it by no means made her unfit for
sexual intercourse
12) It was due to plaintiffs own voluntary desistance (memory of first unpleasant experience) that made him give up the
idea of again having carnal knowledge of her even after she had already been rid of her disease
13) Contention of fraud: she did not inform him of her disease in sex organsbut this contention is untenable since fraud
is not alleged in the complaint and has not been proved at the trial