This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
MOLINA GR NO 108763 February 13, 1997 Petitioner: RP Respondent: CA and Roridel Olaviano Molina Nature of the Case: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA Ponente: Panganiban, J. Issue: Incorrect and erroneous interpretation of the phrase psychological incapacity Facts: 1) Petition for review on certiorari challenging the decision of CA affirming in toto the decision of RTC which declared the marriage of respondent Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity 2) April 14, 1985 at san Agustin Church: married 3) Son: Andre O. Molina 4) after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility spent more time with peers and friends with whom he squandered his money depended on his parents for aid and assistance never honest with wife regarding finances resulting in frequent quarrels 5) Feb 1986: Reynaldo relived from job 6) October 1986: intense quarrel- relationship was estranged 7) March 1987: Roridel resigned from job in manila and went to live w/ parents in Baguio City 8) Reynaldo left Roridel and their child and abandoned them since then 9) August 28, 1989: Reynaldo admitted they could no longer live together Contended that misunderstandings were due to: a) Roridel’s strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after marriage b) Roridels’ refusal to perform some of her marital duties (cooking meals) c) Roridel’s failure to run the household and handle finances 10) Witnesses for Roridel: Rosemarie ventura and maria Leonora padilla (friends); Ruth Lalas (social worker) and Dr. teresita Hidalgo Sison (psychiatrist of BGH) RTC: declared marriage VOID CA: denied petitioner’s appeal and AFFIRMED decision of RTC DECISION OF SC: Petition is meritorious. The petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel olaviano and Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid. REASONS: 1) Leouel Santos vs. CA: Vitug ruled: “psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity and intendment of law is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage; must be characterized by: 1) gravity; 2) juridical antecedence and 3) incurability 2) What appears in this case is more of a “difficulty” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of marital obligations 3) Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitute psychological incapacity 4) GUIDELINES IN THE INTERPRETATION and APPLICATION OF ART 36 of FC a) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: 1) medically or clinically identified; 2) alleged in the complaint; 3) sufficiently proven by experts; 4) clearly explained in the decision c) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage d) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable
e) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Art 68-71 of the FC as regards to husband and wife as well as Arts 220,221, and 225 of FC in regard t parents and children g) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Phils while not controlling or decisive should be given respect by our courts h) He trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state HERNANDEZ vs. CA GR No 126010 December 8, 1999 Petitioner: Lucita Estrella Hernandez Respondent: CA and Mario C. Hernandez Nature of the CASE: petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA Ponente: Mendoza, J. Issue: WON the marriage of petitioner and private respondent should be annulled on the ground of private respondent’s psychological incapacity Facts: 1) CA affirming the decision of RTC which dismissed the petition for annulment of marriage filed by petitioner 2) January 1, 1981: petitioner and private respondent married (Silang Catholic Parich Church, Cavite) 3) Three children born: Maie (may 3, 1982); Lyra (May 22, 1985) and Marian (June 15, 1989) 4) July 10, 1992: filed complaint RTC Br 18 tagaytay City annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity 5) ALLEGATIONS Private respondent failed to perform his obligation to support family and contribute to management of household Devoting most of time engaging in drinking sprees w/ friends Cohabited with other women though married with whom he had illegitimate children Because of his promiscuity private respondent endangered her health by infecting her with sexually transmitted disease PR irresponsible. Immature and unprepared for duties of married life Ordered to give support to their three children P9000 every month; she be awarded custody of their children and she be adjudged sole owner of parcel of land (Don Gregorio Subd, BUcal dasmarinas Cavite) as well as jeep which private respondent took with him when he left conjugal home on June 12, 1992 Not close to their children 6) Met in 1977 at Phil Christian University (petitioner 5 years older than respondent-teacher and student) Respondent continued studies after marriage supported by parents and petitioner Aside form her salary augmented their income by doing sideline businesses Respondent left but received again by the petitioner to save their marriage Smoking, drinking, gambling and womanizing became worse Once beaten by husband when she confronted her about Tess –confined at De LA sale University Medical Center (cerebral concussion) Oct 1992; petitioner learned that respondent left for middle east and since then whereabouts had been unknown RTC DECISION: dismissing the petition for annulment of marriage What were mentioned were not ground for annulment but for legal separation (art 55 of FC) CA: affirmed decision of RTC (January 30, 1996) – quoted Santos vs CA Acts and attitudes complained happened after the marriage and there is no proof that the same have already existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage to constitute psychological incapacity under Art 36 of FC
DECISION OF SC: Petition is DENIED, decision of CA AFFIRMED. REASONS: 1) Differentiated Voidable (Art 46) , Void marriage and legal separation (Art 55) 2) Petitioner failed to establish the fact that at the time of the marriage respondent was suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities 3) Quoted Republic vs CA: root cause of psychological incapacity…. 4) Expert testimony should have been presented 5) Separate proceeding for other contentions (custody, support etc) AMOR-CATALAN cs CA GR NO 167109 February 6, 2007 Petitioner: felicitas Amor-Catalan Respondents: CA, Orlando B. catalan and Merope E Braganza Nature of the Case: petition for review on decision of CA Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J. Issue: Facts: 1) CA reversed decision of RTC of dagupan City declaring the marriage between respondents Orlando B. catalan and Merope Braganza void on the ground of bigamy and the denied motion for reconsideration 2) June 4, 1950: mabini, Pangasinan; married 3) Migrated to the US and allegedly became naturalized citizens of US 4) After 38 years of marriage, divorced in Aril 1988 5) June 16, 1988: Orlando married Merope in calasiao, pangasinan 6) Contending that said marriage was bigamous; Merope has subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol, petitioner filed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with damages in the RTC of Dagupan 7) Respondents filed motion to dismiss but denied RTC: judgment in favor or petitioner; subsequent marriage of Merope Braganza with Orlando catalan is declared null and void Defendants jointly pay moral damages (P300,000) and exemplary damages (P200,000) and attorney’ s fees (P50,000) including cost of suit; donation in consideration of marriage is ordered revoked and the property donated is ordered awarded to the heirs of Juliana Branganza CA: GRANT the appeal and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the appealed decision, civil case DISMISSED; motion for reconsideration denied ISSUES: 1) Whether petitioner has the required standing in court to question the nullity of the marriage between respondents 2) Whether the failure of the court of appeals to declare the questioned marriage void constitutes reversible error DECISION OF SC: Case is REMANDED to the trial court for its proper disposition a) If it is proven that a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow respondent’s remarriage, then the TC should declare respondent’s marriage as bigamous and void ab initio but reduce the amount of moral damages from P300,000 to P50,000 and exemplary damages from P200,000 to P25,000 b) If it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of marriage on the ground that petitioner Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same REASONS: 1) Need to ascertain the allegations that they were naturalized in the US and whether they had actually been judicially granted a divorce decree 2) If these are proven, then this case is not dealing with Filipino citizens whose marital status is governed by the FC and our CC but with American citizens who secured their divorce in the US and who are considered by their national law to be free to contract another marriage 3) Two kinds of divorce: a) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii- terminates the marriage; and b) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro- suspends and leaves the bond in full force
4) A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner 5) Need to present divorce evidence and foreign law for deciding on this matter—to know if she has personality or standing in this case 6) One with Proper interest to file a case—a petition to declare the nullity of marriage like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest and mist be based on a cause of action (Sec 2a of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) 7) Petitioner’s personality to file petition cannot be ascertained because of absence of divorce decree and foreign law allowing it—to know if respondent is allowed to remarry after a divorce or not
ZAMORA vs. CA GR NO 141917 February 7, 2007 Petitioner: Bernardino S. Zamora Respondent: CA and Norma Mercado Zamora Nature of the Case: appeal by certiorari to annul and set aside the decision and rule of CA Ponente: Azcuna, J. Issue: Whether there can be a declaration of nullity of the marriage between petitioner and private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity Facts: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) CA affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage June 4, 1970: married in Cebu City Union did not produce a child 1972: private respondent left for US to work as nurse, and later became a citizen (1989) Returned in the pHils once in a while 6) Petitioner filed complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage anchored on the alleged psychological incapacity of private respondent 7) Alleged that wife is horrified by the mere thought of having children as evidenced by the fact that she had not born a petitioner a child; alleged she abandoned petitioner and lived in the US; lived together only for not more than three years 8) Respondent denied allegations: She do not refuse to have a child She loves children Petitioner is unfaithful to her—had two affairs with different women and he begot atleast three children with them RTC: June 22, 1995: nothing in the evidence showed respondent is suffering from psychological incapacity—Complaint DISMISSED CA: August 5, 1999: affirming the ruling of the trial court (Santos vs CA and Republic vs CA and Molina); denied motion for reconsideration DECISION OF SC: petition is DENIED. The decision and resolution of CA dated August 5, 1999 and January 24, 2000 are AFFIRMED. REASONS: 1) It is true that in Santos vs CA no specific mention of presentation of expert opinion—but it is important is the presence (Marcos vs Marcos) of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to 2) Sec 2(d) of AM No 01-11-10 SC: Rule on declaration of Absolute nullity of Void Marriages and ANnulment of Voidable Marriages—“what to allege”—the complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged
FERRARIS vs. FERRARIS GR NO 162368 July 17, 2006 Petitioner: Ma. Armida Perez-ferraris Respondent: Brix Ferraris Nature of the Case: Motion for reconsideration of the decision of the SC POnente: Ynares- Santiago, J. Issue: WON psychological incapacity exists in a given case Facts: 1) Reconsideration of the resolution dated June 9, 2004 denying petition for review on certiorari of the decision of CA RTC: denying petition for declaration of nullity of petitioner’s marriage with Brix Ferraris Suffering from epilepsy does not amount to psychological incapacity and evidence on record were insufficient to prove infidelity CA: affirmed in toto the judgment of the trial court Evidence did not establish proof of psychological incapacity not shown that his defects were incurable and already present at the inception of marriage - Dr. dayan’s testimony failed to establish how she arrived at the conclusion that the respondent has mixed personality disorder and failed to show that there was a natal or supervening disabling factor or an adverse integral element in respondent’s character that effectively incapacitated him from accepting and complying w/ essential marital obligations DECISION OF SC: motion for reconsideration is DENIED; motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated June 9, 2004 denying the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error is DENIED WITH FINALITY REASONS: 1) Issue of WON psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of marriage depends crucially on the facts of the case 2) Psychological incapacity- refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage; malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of marital bond one is about to assume; most serious cases of personality disorder clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to a marriage 3) During the relatively short period of time, petitioner was happy and contented with her life in the company of respondent 4) Problems began when petitioner started doubting respondent’s infidelity 5) Respondent’s alleged mixed personality disorder, the “leaving the house” attitude whenever they quarreled, violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, sexual infidelity, abandonment and lack of support and his preference to spend more time with his bandmates than his family, are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage 6) Psychological defects spoken here were more of a “difficulty” if not “outright” refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations and that a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitute psychological incapacity 7) It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons, it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological not physical illness 8) Sanctity of marriage stated in Constitution—protected by the state 9) Art 36 should not be confused with divorce law nor equated with legal separation
VOIDABLE MARRIAGES AQUINO vs. DELIZO No L- 15853 July 27, 1960 Petitioner: Fernando Aquino Respondent: Conchita delizo Nature of the case: Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the CA Ponente: Gutierrez- david, J. Issue: Facts: 1) CA affirmed RTC decision which dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for annulment of his marriage w/ respondent 2) Based on the ground of FRAUD—alleged that defendant at the date of her marriage to plaintiff, herein petitioner, on Dec 27, 1954 concealed from the latter her pregnancy by another man 3) Sometime in April 1955, about four months after marriage—gave birth to a child 4) Defendant claimed that child was conceived out of lawful wedlock between her and the plaintiff 5) Only document presented was marriage contract between parties 6) June 16, 1956: no birth certificate presented to show that child was born within 180 days after marriage—dismissed the complaint 7) Through verified petition to reopen reception of additional evidence, plaintiff tried to present birth certificates and delivery of child on April 26, 1955—failed to secure earlier due to excusable negligence—petition was DENIED CA: court erred in denying the motion for reception of additional evidences—but still DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT - However, on the theory, it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have had sexual intercourse during their engagement so that the child could be their own - Finding unbelievable plaintiff’s claim that he did not notice or even suspect that defendant was pregnant when he married her 8) Motion for reconsideration filed—remanding case to trial court for new evidences and trial 9) CA ordered defendant and Assistant Prov Fiscal of Rizal to answer motion—defendants and fiscal failed to file an answer 10) Motion was denied; thus this petition DECISION OF SC: DISMISSAL cannot be sustained; The decision complained of is SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to the court a quo for new trial REASONS: 1) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage (Art 85 par (4) in relation to Art 86 par (3)) 2) BUccat vs Buccat is different; here defendant wife was alleged to be ore than four months pregnant at the time of marriage—pregnancy not readily apparent especially she was naturally plump or fat as alleged by plaintiff 3) Medically: it is said that it is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman’s abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent 4) Appellate court said it was not impossible for parties to have had sexual intercourse before marriage—purely conjectural and finds no support or justification in the record 5) Evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial might be sufficient to sustain fraud alleged by plaintiff ANAYA vs. PALAROAN NO L- 27930 November 26, 1970 Plaintiff-appellant: Aurora A. Anaya Defendant-Appellee: Fernando O. Palaroan Nature of the Case: Appeal from an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations court Issue: WON the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-martial relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage Ponente: reyes, J.B.L., J. Facts: 1) Appeal from an order of dismissal issued by the J and D Relations court of a complaint for annulment of marriage 2) Dec 4, 1953: married 3) Fernando filed action for annulment on 7 January 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation 4) Aurora’s Counterclaim: Fernando has divulged to aurora that several months prior to their marriage. He had premarital relationship with a close relative of his, and that the non-divulgement to her of aforementioned pre-marital secret on the part of the defendant that definitely wrecked their marriage 5) Plaintiff herein from going through marriage that was solemnized between them constituted FRAUD in obtaining her consent, within the contemplation of No. 4 of Art 35 of CC—prayed for annulment of their marriage DEFENDANT’s CLAIMS:
1) 2) 3) 4)
Denied allegations of pre-marital relationship with close relative Under no circumstance would he live with Aurora, as he escaped from her and from her relatives the day ff marriage Denied having committed any fraud with her DEfense lack of action and estoppel
CFI Manila: dismissed complaint upholding validity of their marriage; realizing that Aurora’s allegations of the fraud was legally insufficient to invalidate her marriage and denied reconsideration SC: agree with lower court; appealed order is AFFIRMED REASONS: 1) For fraud as a vice of consent in marriage which may be a cause for its annulment come under Art 85 No 4 of the CC and Art 86 – specific frauds given (misrepresentation as to identity; non disclosure of a previous conviction and concealment of pregnancy) 2) Non concealment of a husband’s premarital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment 3) It is further excluded by last paragraph that “no other misrepresentation of deceit as to… chastity shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage 4) For second set of averments of plaintiff (pretended love and absence of intention to perform duties of consortium)—is an entirely new and additional “cause of action”—she cannot change or amend previous alleged causes of action much more not allowed to introduce new allegations 5) Wedding was celebrated in Dec of 1953 and this ground was only pleaded in 1966, it must be declared already barred
SISON vs TE LAY LI NO 7037- May 7, 1952 Plaintiff and Appellee: Juanita Sison Defendant and Appellant: Te Lay Li Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Davao Ponente: Reyes, JBL, J. Issue; Facts: 1) Appeal from a decision of CFI Davao declaring the two marriages celebrated one after another on April 28, 1949 null and void on the ground of plaintiff’s consent was obtained through force and intimidation employed upon her by her father 2) Morning of April 28, 1949—civil wedding before Judge Delfin Hofilena of MC of Davao, afternoon—remarried in accordance with rites of Republic of China before Chinese Consul S.T. Mih in office in Davao City 3) Plaintiff’s testimony: - Defendant never wooed her - Wedding arranged by father - Father whipped her often as she opposed marriage - Resorted to beating her - She ran away from home but found by father and promised she will not force her again - But renewed subject of marriage—handed her a knife telling her to choose between her life of his—because of fear that her father might kill her she agreed to the marriage - Testimony corroborated by mother and Epifania del Rio—relative of her mother - She lived with her husband in his parent’s home but considered him a stranger since she doesn’t love him - She was kept a prisoner in the house; she never occupied the same bed with husband - Never had sexual intercourse except on June 1, 1949 forced by husband using a knife—she mustered courage to escape from her husband’s home 4) DEFENDANT’S CLAIMS: - Marriages were regular and legal - Entered into marriage freely and voluntarily - Plaintiff not kept a prisoner - Plaintiff would everyday ask her father in law to give her and her husband their own house and business - She slapped her—only when she ran away with P1200 and when asked where she came from she retorted it was none of his business -
CFI: finding the plaintiff’s marriage consummated only by intimidation and force and that plaintiff never for a moment acquiesced to the status of a wife to the defendant and declared two marriages between them null and void; defendant ordered to return the P1200 and whatever personal belongings the plaintiff had left in their house Witnesses; Judge Delfin Hofilena for defendant but testified in cross examination that plaintiff came to him and confided that she was being compelled to marry a man she did not like Te Seng: plaintiff ran away, her father asked help from him to take daughter home; confessed that daughter did not want to marry the defendant DECISION OF SC: The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the sole modification that the amount ordered return to plaintiff should be P1248 according to evidence and not P1200. REASONS: 1) While it is true that it is the policy of the law to maintain the marriage ties, when it is amply proved that the marriage is effected through duress and intimidation and w/o the consent and against the will of one of the parties, there are no ties to be preserved and the marriage should consequently be annulled 2) There was no voluntary cohabitation on the wife’s part
ViLLANUEVA vs. CA GR NO 132955 October 27, 2006 Petitioner: Orlando Villanueva Respondents: CA and Lilia Canalita- Villanueva Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA Ponente: Ynares- Santiago, J. Issue; 1) Whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent 2) Whether petitioner should be liable for moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees and costs Facts: 1) Petition for review of decision of CA affirming with modification the decision of RTC of Valenzuela, MM dismissing petitioner’s petition for annulment of his marriage to private respondent and ordering him to pay for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs 2) April 13, 1988: married Puerto Princesa Palawan 3) Nov 17, 1992:Orlando filed petition for annulment: alleged that threats of violence and duress forced him to marry Lilia who was already pregnant; he claims: - He did no get her pregnant prior to the marriage - He never cohabited with her after the marriage - He later learned that private respondent’s child died during delivery on August 29, 1988 4) LILIA’S ANSWERS: - Petitioner freely and voluntarily married her - Petitioner stayed with her in Palawan for almost a month - Petitioner wrote letters to her after he returned to Manila - Petitioner knew about the progress of her pregnancy—which ended in their son being born prematurely - Prayed for payment of moral damages and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs
RTC: dismissed the above complaint; ordering plaintiff to pay the damages, (P100,000 moral; 50,000 exemplary and P20,000 Attorney’s fees and costs) CA: AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision and the award of attorney’s fees and costs but reduced gthe moral and exemplary damages to P50,000 and P25,000.; denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration DECISION OF SC: petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Decision of CA affirming modification of the decision of RTC Valenzuela MM BR 172 dismissing petitioner’s petition for annulment of his marriage is AFFIRMED. However the award of moral and exemplary damages is DELETED for lack of basis. REASONS: 1) Affirmed that findings of CA show that petitioner freely and voluntarily married private respondent and that no threats or intimidation, duress or violence compelled him to do so 2) After a span of 4 years and 8 months when Orlando took serious step to have the marriage annulled—to get favorable judgment that would bring about his acquittal in a bigamy case pending against him
Several incidents cited: well-grounded fear and imminent danger: phone calls harassing him, three men at premises of UE after his classes; threatening presence of a certain Ka Celso (member of NPA) hired by plaintiff to accompany him to go to Palawan—not convincing—security guard-knows how to protect or defend himself 4) Fraud—made to believe that she was pregnant with his child when they got married—he could not have impregnated her because he did not have erection during their tryst—outright lie 5) At the light of appellant’s admission that he had sexual intercourse with his wife in January 1988—and his failure to attribute latter’s pregnancy to any other men, appellant cannot complain that he was deceived by appellee into marrying her 6) Lack of cohabitation per se is not a ground to annul a marriage 7) Agree to private respondent’s claim for attorney’s fees but delete the award of moral and exemplary damages for lack of factual and legal basis—nothing in the records or in appealed decision that would support this award
JIMENEZ vs CANIZARES NO L- 12790 August 31, 1960 Plaintiff and Appelle: Joel Jimenez Defendant and Appellant: Remedios Canizares and Republic of Phils Intervenor Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of CFI of Zamboanga City Ponente: Padilla, J. Issue: The question to determine is Whether the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that his wide was and is impotent. The latter did not answer the complaint, was absent during hearing and refused to submit to medical examination Facts: 1) Complaint field Joel Jimenez prays for a decree annulling his marriage to defendant 2) Married 3 august 1950 before judge of MC of Zamboanga City 3) Ground: orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation; that the condition of her genitals as described existed at the time of their marriage and continues to exist; and that for this reason he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after they had been married 4) Dec 17 1956: court entered an order requiring defendant to submit to physical examination by a competent lady physician to determine her physical capacity for copulation and to submit w/in ten days from receipt of order a medical certificate 5) March 14, 1957: granted additional 5 days to comply with order of dec 17 with warning that failure to undergo medical examination and submit required certificate would be deemed lack of interest in the case and that judgment would be rendered upon presentation of evidence of husband CFI: 11 April 1957: hearing, defendant is not present: Judgment: Decree Annulling the marriage between plaintiff and defendant 6) 26 april 1957: city attorney intervened: filed motion for reconsideration—that the defendant’s impotency has not been satisfactorily established as required by law; she had not been physically examined because she refused to be examined; instead of annulling the marriage the court should have punished her for contempt of court and compelled her to undergo physical examination and submit med cert 7) He prayed that complaint be dismissed or that the wife be subjected to a physical examination 8) 13 May 1957; motion for reconsideration was denied DECISION OF SC: Decree appealed from is SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision REASONS: 1) Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is deeply interested—state has surrounded it with safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence 2) The incidents of status are governed by law and not by will of parties 3) Presumption is that 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 4) This the court may do w/o infringing upon her constitutional right—physical examination does not entail selfincrimination 5) Presumption is in favor of potency
Plaintiff and appellee: _________ Sarao Defendant and Appelle: Pilar Guevara
SARAO vs GUEVARRA No 4264 May 31, 1940
Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of laguna Ponente: Reyes, A. J, Issue: NO reason in disturbing the decision appealed from. Decision CONFIRMED. Facts: 1) Appeal from decision of CFI dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for annulment of marriage in the ground of impotency 2) Married: June 3, 1936: Manila 3) Afternoon: plaintiff tried to have carnal knowledge but defendant asked to wait for the evening 4) Night came: plaintiff again approached defendant—though he found orifice of her vagina sufficiently large for his organ, she complained of pains of her private parts and he notices oozing therefrom some purulent matter offensive to the smell 5) Upon advice of physician—defendant submitted to operation (august 7, 1936) and as medical verdict that the uterus and the ovaries were bound to be effected with tumor—surgically removed with consent of plaintiff 6) Rendered defendant incapable of procreation but did not incapacitate her to copulate 7) Under marriage law: marriage may be annulled if the party, was at the time of marriage, physically incapable of entering into the married state and such incapacity remains incurable 8) Plaintiff wants to construe phrase of physically incapable of entering into married state into incapacity to procreate 9) US generally held that the meaning on impotency is not the ability to procreate but the inability to copulate 10) Defect must be of copulation not reproduction—barrenness will not invalidate the marriage 11) Defendant is not impotent in this case—removal of parts rendered her sterile but it by no means made her unfit for sexual intercourse 12) It was due to plaintiff’s own voluntary desistance (memory of first unpleasant experience) that made him give up the idea of again having carnal knowledge of her even after she had already been rid of her disease 13) Contention of fraud: she did not inform him of her disease in sex organs—but this contention is untenable since fraud is not alleged in the complaint and has not been proved at the trial
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.