UP Law F2021 Menciano v.

San Jose
Medical Jurisprudence 1951 Jugo

SUMMARY

Respondents claim that decedent was impotent and could therefore, not have sired minors subject of the
motion for declaration of heirs. Court held that impotency, being an abnormal condition, should not be
presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency. Impotency is not synonymous with sterility.

FACTS

Matilde Menciano, in behalf of herself and minors Carlo Magno and Faustino Neri, filed a motion for
declaration of heirs, alleging the following:

 She is the widow of deceased Faustino Neri San Jose

 They got married in a Catholic Church, Sept 28,1944 before Reverend Fater Edralin
 Before marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and there was no impediment to their
marriage
 As a result of their cohabitation, Carlo Magno Neri was born on March 4, 1940. Baptized, recognized
natural child, legitimized by subsequent matrimony of his parents
 Faustino Neri, Jr.- April 24, 1945, legitimate
 Paz Neri San Jose, executrix of the estate of Faustino and Rodolfo Pelaez (designated universal heir in
the will of the deceased), denied substantial allegations of Matilde Menciano.
 Respondents arguments:
 Deceased from 1943 suffered senile dementia caused by anemia, bombarded by American
Planes
 Marriage bet Matilde and deceased, if solemnized, was in violation of legal provisions and
requisites because:
 Deceased was deprived of his free will due to his age, sickness and bombardment
 Matilde took advantage of his condition by intrigue and threat of abandoning him, forced by
means of deceit and threat to marry her
 Deceased was sterile, unable to procreate, impotent and congenitally sterile same as his
brothers and sister who had no children
 P286,000 worth of certain properties, jewels and cash retained & illegally disposed of by
Matilde Menciano

RATIO

ISSUES

1. Was the marriage between deceased and Matilde valid?

2. Are the children the legitimate children of deceased and Matilde?
3. Did Matilde Menciano have in her possession and illegally disposed of cash, jewels, and
certain properties?

1. Doctrine applied Testamentary Capacity- Capacity to Contract Marriage (requires same mental
condition)

The following documents were submitted: Application for marriage license signed by deceased,
application for ML signed by Matilde, Certificate for immediate issuance of ML signed by the LCR +
Matilde and Deceased, and Marriage Certificate signed by both parties, 2 witnesses and marrying
official (Reverend Edralin).

SC: Testimonies of Respondents were too sweeping because they refer to a general period of time

a. Father Edralin even had to wait for about 2 days to perform ceremony when the old man,
although somewhat weak, had a clear mind
b. Mere glance of signatures will convince anyone that they could not have been written by a
man who is almost unconscious and physically and intellectually incapacitated
c. Sign was complicated, contained many flourishes that it can’t be signed by one who is not
of sound mind/fair physical condition
d. If compared with his other signs, practically uniformed
e. No sign of trembling

Torres, et al v. Lopez- Neither old age, physical infirmities, feebleness of mind, weakness of the memory,
appointment of a guardian, nor eccentricities are sufficient singly/jointly to show testamentary
incapacity

Testamentary Capacity

f. Can relate to capacity to contract marriage which requires the same mental condition
g. Possessed spark of reason and of life
h. Strength of mind to form a fixed intention
i. Summon his enfeebled thoughts to enforce intention

Sancho v. Abella- Neither senile debility, nor deafness, nor blindness, nor poor memory is by itself
sufficient to establish the presumption that person suffering therefrom is not in the full enjoyment of his
mental faculties, when there is sufficient evidence of his mental sanity at the time of the execution of the
will

2. CARLO MAGNO NERI has not been acknowledged as natural child and cannot be legitimized by
subsequent marriage of his parents; FAUSTINO NERI, JR legitimate

 Married September 28, 1944

 Faustino Neri, Jr was born on April 24, 1945 (280d after marriage/more than 180d after
marriage but less than 300d after death of deceased)
 They cohabited before and after marriage
 Rule 123, Sec 68
o Issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband (who is not impotent) is indisputably
presumed to be legitimate if not born within 180d immediately succeeding
marriage/after expiration of 300d following its dissolution
 Impotency is not presumed. Presumption in favor of potency.
 Impotency (physical inability to have sexual intercourse) not synonymous to sterility (Lack of
fertility in the reproductive elements of either sex).
 Best evidence: Potency of deceased according to statement of Dr. Garcia. Faustina used
condom and a woman
 Essential element of impotency- absence of complete power of copulation
 According to medical jurisprudence, a man may not have spermatozoa at a certain time, but
 may have had it previously or may have it subsequently to the examinations. It would have
been better if there was an examination of his seminal fluid every year. Thus result of inability
is inconclusive because only made once.

3. Such allegation has not been substantiated, no satisfactory evidence of misappropriation

FALLO

Judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellants.