You are on page 1of 1

SARAO VS GUEVARA ISSUE:

May 31 1940
J A. Reyes As claimed by the petitioner, W/N the phrase “physically
incapable of entering into a married state” (Sec 30 of Act No.
Sec. 30 of the Act No. 3613 states that marriage can be 3613) refers to incapacity to procreate
annulled if “either party was, at the time of marriage, physically
incapable of entering into the married state, and such RATIO AND HOLDING:
incapacity continues and is incurable”
NO

FACTS: Since the country’s marriage law at that time was of American
 On June 3, 1936, Felix Sarao and Pilar Guevara were origin, said provisions were interpreted following American
married in Manila decisions. As such, citing Keezer, the test of impotency does
 On the same day, Felix Sarao initiated carnal not refer to the ability to procreate, but the ability to copulate
knowledge (sexual intercourse) with Pilar Guevara. (engage in sex). Moreover, it was cited that such impotency
Although he found her vagina to be of adequate size, must be permanent and lasting.
Pilar complained of feeling pains when they had sex.
He likewise noticed purulent material from Pilar’s It should also be noted that Pilar was not impotent when she
vagina which was offensive to his smell. married. It was the surgery which rendered her baren, but she
 On August 7, 1936, Pilar underwent surgery to remove was still capable of intercourse. It was Felix’s disgust of Pilar’s
her uterus and ovaries because they were found to be sexual organ during their honeymoon which made him
infected by a tumor. According to the physician, the unwilling to copulate with her from then on out
operation rendered Pilar incapable of procreation but it
did not incapacitate her for copulation. Felix’s claim that his consent to marry was fraudulent because
 After said operation, Felix declared that he has lost he was unaware of Pilar’s disease is untenable. This was not
interest to have sex with his wife. This prompted him to alleged in the filed complaint and it has not been proven in trial
file for the annulment of their marriage
 Even after claiming impotency as grounds for RULING
annulment, the Court of First Instance of Laguna
dismissed Felix’s petition Felix’s petition is dismissed with costs against him