Facts: 

 Plaintiff J filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with C on the ground that the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation. J alleged that the condition of C's genitals as described above existed at the time of marriage and continues to exist and that for that reason he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after they had been married. 

 C, however, failed to submit her answer within the required period. The Court ordered C to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady physician to determine her physical capacity for copulation. but C did not follow the order and did not appear during the scheduled hearings. The judge, thus, rendered judgment annulling the marriage of the parties. 


Issue: 

May the marriage in question be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband-plaintiff?


Held:

No. The law specifically enumerates the legal grounds that must be proved to exist by indubitable evidence, to annul a marriage. Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactorily established, because from the commencement of the proceedings until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking part therein. Although her refusal to be examined or failure to appear in court show indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or be inferred because 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. 

 "Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency." The lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as husband and wife. (Jimenez vs. Cañizares, G.R. No. L-12790, August 31, 1960)