You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

Jimenez vs. Canizares
1.) Joel and Remedios are husband and wife. Joel later filed for annulment on grounds that Remedios is
impotent because her genitals were too small for copulation and such was already existing at the time of
the marriage.
2.) Remedios was summoned to answer the complaint of Joel but she refused to do so. It was found that
there was no collusion between the parties notwithstanding the non-cooperation of Remedios in the
3.) Remedios was ordered to have herself be submitted to an expert to determine if her genitals are
indeed too small for copulation. Remedios again refused to do as ordered. The trial was heard solely on
Joels complaint. The marriage was later annulled.
Whether or not Remedios impotency has been established.
In the case at bar, the annulment of the marriage in question was decreed upon the sole testimony of
Joel who was expected to give testimony tending or aiming at securing the annulment of his marriage he
sought and seeks.
Whether Remedios 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.
Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of
potency. The lone testimony of Joel 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 SC REMANDED the case to the lower court for further proceedings.