Sarao v.

Guevara SyllabusTopic
G.R. No. Ponente Date
4264 Reyes May 31, 1940
Petitioners Respondents
Sarao Guevarra

I. Facts of the case

Plaintiff and defendant were married and on the same day, Sarao tried to have carnal knowledge
of the defendant. The latter showed reluctance and begged him to wait until evening. Although he found
the orifice of her vagina sufficiently large for his organ, she complained of pains in her private part later
that night. Plaintiff also noticed oozing purulent matter offensive to the smell coming from Guevarra’s
vagina.

Every attempt to have carnal access to his wife proved to be futile because she always complained of
pains in her genital organs. Upon advice of the physician, the defendant's uterus and ovaries were, with
consent if the plaintiff removed due to the presence of a tumor. The removal of the uterus rendered the
defendant incapable of procreation.

Plaintiff declared that from the time he witnessed the operation, he lost all desire to have access with his
wife and thus filed this complaint for annulment of marriage on the ground of impotency.

II. Issue/s
● Whether impotence may be a ground to annul a valid marriage.

III. Ratio/Legal Basis

NO. Although the plaintiff-appellant wants to construe the phrase "physically incapable of
entering into the married state" as meaning incapacity to procreate. We cannot subscribe to this view.
Our marriage law being of American origin,its provisions should be interpreted in the light of American
decisions. In the United States it is generally held that the test of impotency is not the ability to
procreate, but the ability to copulate. As stated by a well-known authority. "the defect must be one of
copulation, not reproduction. Barrenness will not invalidate the marriage, * * * (Keezer on Marriage and
Divorce, sec. 168). Says the same authority, "A temporary or occasional incapacity for copulation is not a
ground for a decree of nullity. The defect must be permanent and lasting."

It should be noted in the first place that defendant was not impotent at the time she married plaintiff for,
according to the opinion of the doctor who operated her, the existence of a fibrous tumor in the ovaries
did not necessarily render her incapable of copulation or even of procreation. The removal of the
diseased parts, it is true, rendered her sterile, but it by no means made her unfit for sexual intercourse. If
plaintiff was not able to consummate a carnal act with his wife the first time he had access with her, it
was due to his own voluntary desistance, and it would also appear that it was the memory of this first
unpleasant experience with her that made him give up the idea of again having carnal knowledge of her
even after she had already been rid of her disease.

Digest Marker: Reyes, Michaella

Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.

Digest Marker: Reyes, Michaella