JIMENEZ VS CANIZARES

G.R. NO. L-12790

AUGUST 31, 1960

FACTS:
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. 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 case. 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 Joel’s complaint. The
marriage was later annulled.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Remedios’ impotency has been established.

HELD:
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.