SARAO vs GUEVARRA

No 4264 May 31, 1940

Plaintiff and appellee: Sarao
Defendant and Appelle: Pilar Guevara
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 plaintiffs 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 defendantthough he found
o r i f i c e o f h e r v a g i n a s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e f o r h i s organ, she complained of pains of
her private parts and he notices oozing there from some purulent matter offensive to the smell
5) Upon advice of physiciandefendant submitted to operation (august 7, 1936)
and as medical verdict that the uterus and the ovaries were bound to be effected with
tumorsurgically removed with consent of plaintiff
6) Rendered defendant incapable of procreation but did not incapacitate her to
copulate
7 ) U n d e r m a r r i a g e l a w : m a r r i a g e m a y b e a n n u l l e d i f t h e p a r t y, w a s a t t h e
t i m e o f m a r r i a g e , p h y s i c a l l y i n c a p a b l e o f 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 reproductionbarrenness will not invalidate
the marriage
11) Defendant is not impotent in this caseremoval of parts rendered her sterile
but it by no means made her unfit for sexual intercourse
12) It was due to plaintiffs 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 organsbut
this contention is untenable since fraud is not alleged in the complaint and has not been
proved at the trial