Felix B.

Sarao, plaintiff and appellant,

vs. Pilar Guevara, defendant and appellee.

No. 4264 | 1940-05-31

DOCTRINE: Impotency is the ability to copulate and not the ability to procreate.

NATURE: This is an appeal from a decision of the CFI dismissing plaintiff's complaint for
annulment of marriage on the ground of impotency.

FACTS:
 On June 3, 1936, Felix Sarao and Pilar Guevara were married in Manila
 On the same day, Felix Sarao initiated carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) with Pilar
Guevara. Although he found her vagina to be of adequate size, Pilar complained of
feeling pains when they had sex. He likewise noticed purulent material from Pilar’s
vagina which was offensive to his smell.
 On August 7, 1936, Pilar underwent surgery to remove her uterus and ovaries because
they were found to be infected by a tumor. According to the physician, the operation
rendered Pilar incapable of procreation but it did not incapacitate her for copulation.
 After said operation, Felix declared that he has lost interest to have sex with his wife.
This prompted him to file for the annulment of their marriage
 Even after claiming impotency as grounds for annulment, the Court of First Instance of
Laguna dismissed Felix’s petition

ISSUE: W/N the phrase “physically incapable of entering into a married state” (Sec 30 of Act
No. 3613) refers to incapacity to procreate. (NO)

RULING: Felix’s petition is dismissed with costs against him

RATIO:

Sec. 30 of the Act No. 3613 states that marriage can be annulled if “either party was, at the time
of marriage, physically incapable of entering into the married state, and such incapacity
continues and is incurable”

Since the country’s marriage law at that time was of American origin, said provisions were
interpreted following American decisions. As such, citing Keezer, the test of impotency does not
refer to the ability to procreate, but the ability to copulate (engage in sex). Moreover, it was cited
that such impotency must be permanent and lasting.

It should also be noted that Pilar was not impotent when she married. It was the surgery which
rendered her sterile, but she was still capable of intercourse. It was Felix’s disgust of Pilar’s
sexual organ during their honeymoon which made him unwilling to copulate with her from then
on out.

Felix’s claim that his consent to marry was fraudulent because he was unaware of Pilar’s disease
is untenable. This was not alleged in the filed complaint and it has not been proven in trial.
Felix B. Sarao, plaintiff and appellant,
vs. Pilar Guevara, defendant and appellee.

No. 4264 | 1940-05-31