G.R. No. L-12790 - Jimenez vs. Canizares

On June 7, 1955, Joel Jimenez filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga to annul his marriage to Remedios Canizares, contracted on August 3, 1950 before a municipal court judge, on the ground that her vaginal orifice was too small to permit penile penetration, a condition existing at the time of marriage and persisting thereafter.
He alleged that, for this reason, he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after the wedding; the wife was summoned on June 14, 1955 but filed no answer.

Pursuant to Civil Code, Article 88, on September 29, 1956 the court directed the city attorney to investigate any collusion and, if none, to intervene to prevent fabricated evidence.
On December 17, 1956 the court ordered the defendant to submit to a physical examination by a lady physician and to file a medical certificate within ten days; on March 14, 1957 she was granted an additional five days with warning that failure to comply would be deemed lack of interest and judgment would be rendered on the husband’s evidence. The defendant did not comply.

After a hearing held in the defendant’s absence, on April 11, 1957 the trial court rendered a decree annulling the marriage.
On April 26, 1957 the city attorney moved for reconsideration, contending that impotence was not satisfactorily established, that the wife’s refusal to submit to examination warranted contempt but not annulment, and praying either dismissal of the complaint or an order compelling examination. He meanwhile perfected an appeal.
On May 13, 1957 the motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving for resolution whether sole testimony of the husband sufficed to annul the marriage.

Can the husband’s lone testimony that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse establish the ground of impotence?
Does the absence of medical or expert evidence render the claim of impotence unproved?

Did the trial court err in annulling the marriage without compelling the defendant to undergo a medical examination?
Was the refusal of the wife to submit to examination a valid basis for presuming her impotence?