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

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12790)

Parties

Petitioner/Appellant (intervenor): Republic of the Philippines, through the city attorney of Zamboanga.
Plaintiff/Appellee: Joel Jimenez, who sought annulment for alleged non-consummation due to defendant’s impotence.
Defendant/Respondent: Remedios Canizares, accused of being physically incapable of sexual intercourse and who did not answer the complaint or submit to ordered medical examination.

Key Dates

Marriage: August 3, 1950.
Complaint filed: June 7, 1955.
Defendant served: June 14, 1955.
Court directed city attorney to inquire into collusion: September 29, 1956 (pursuant to article 88, Civil Code).
Order for defendant’s medical examination: December 17, 1956; extension granted March 14, 1957.
Decree annulling marriage entered by lower court: April 11, 1957.
City attorney filed motion for reconsideration and timely appealed: April 26, 1957; reconsideration denied May 13, 1957.

Applicable Constitutional and Procedural Law

The decision is governed by the constitution and laws in force at the time (the constitution operative in 1960). The lower court acted under Civil Code procedure, including article 88 which authorizes the public prosecutor to intervene when collusion is suspected in annulment actions. The Bill of Rights protection against self-incrimination (cited in the opinion as Section 1, paragraph 13, Article III of the Constitution) was considered in assessing whether a compelled physical examination would violate constitutional rights. The Court applied established evidentiary principles recognizing a presumption in favor of potency and the requirement that grounds for annulment be proved by convincing, indubitable evidence.

Relevant Facts

Joel Jimenez alleged that at the time of marriage the defendant’s vaginal orifice was too small to permit insertion of the male organ and that the condition persisted; he asserted non-consummation and immediate abandonment of the conjugal home. Canizares was served with the complaint but failed to file an answer, refused to submit to a court-ordered physical examination by a lady physician, and was absent at the hearing. The trial court, after hearing only the husband’s testimony, decreed annulment. The city attorney intervened, challenged sufficiency of proof and the procedural handling (including the refusal to punish for contempt or compel examination), and appealed.

Procedural Issue Presented

Whether an annulment for impotency may be properly granted on the basis of the uncorroborated, sole testimony of the husband when the wife did not answer, did not appear, and refused to submit to a medical examination ordered by the court.

Court’s Reasoning — Public Interest and Evidentiary Standard

The Court emphasized that marriage is a public institution and subject to legal safeguards; the legal grounds for annulment must be established by indubitable evidence. Impotency is an abnormal condition that should not be presumed; the presumption runs in favor of potency. Given that the decree was based solely on the husband’s testimony—testimony whose purpose was to secure dissolution—the Court found such evidence insufficient to annul the marriage. The Court was attentive to the danger that a lax standard would permit collusion by married couples seeking to terminate their marriage by mutual fabrication of impotency.

Court’s Reasoning — Defendant’s Silence and Physical Examination

The Court recognized the defendant’s refusal to be examined and absence at trial but held that those facts did not permit an adverse presumption of impotence to be drawn by suppression of evidence. The opinion noted customary reticence among women to submit to intimate physical examination absent compulsion, and declared that a competent court could order a medical examination without violating constitutional pro

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-12790)

Facts of the Case

Plaintiff Joel Jimenez filed a complaint on 7 June 1955 in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga seeking a decree annulling his marriage to defendant Remedios Canizares.
The marriage was contracted on 3 August 1950 before a judge of the municipal court of Zamboanga City.
The ground alleged for annulment was that the orifice of the defendant’s genitals or vagina was too small to allow penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation.
The complaint alleged that the condition existed at the time of marriage and continued to exist, and that plaintiff left the conjugal home two nights and one day after the marriage because of this condition.
On 14 June 1955 the wife was summoned and served with a copy of the complaint; she did not file an answer and abstained from participating in the proceedings thereafter.
The defendant refused to undergo a physical examination despite court orders directing such an examination.

Procedural History

7 June 1955: Complaint filed by Joel Jimenez.
14 June 1955: Defendant summoned and served with the complaint; no answer filed.
29 September 1956: Pursuant to Article 88 of the Civil Code, the Court directed the city attorney of Zamboanga to inquire whether there was collusion between the parties and, if none, to intervene on behalf of the State to verify the plaintiff’s evidence.
17 December 1956: Court ordered defendant to submit to physical examination by a competent lady physician and to submit a medical certificate within ten days.
14 March 1957: Defendant was granted an additional five days from notice to comply with the order of 17 December 1956; she was warned that failure to comply would be deemed lack of interest and judgment upon the husband’s evidence would be rendered.
11 April 1957: After hearing at which defendant was not present, the Court entered a decree annulling the marriage.
26 April 1957: The city attorney filed a motion for reconsideration of the decree and, pending its resolution, timely appealed from the decree.
13 May 1957: The motion for reconsideration was denied.

Relief Sought and Immediate Procedural Requests

Plaintiff sought annulment of the marriage on ground of alleged female impotency.
The city attorney, after being directed to inquire under Article 88, intervened for the State to ensure the plaintiff’s evidence was not a fabrication.
In his motion for reconsideration the city attorney argued: impotency had not been satisfactorily established; defendant had refused physical examination; the court should have punished the defendant for contempt and compelled examination; and that the decree could encourage collusion by married couples seeking to end their marriages.
The city attorney prayed that the complaint be dismissed or that the wife be subjected to a physical examination