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 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 there from 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

32. Sarao vs Guevarra (40 OG 11 Supp 263) Batch 5 Digest

Download DOCX Report

Upload
harold-tan
View
836
Download
88

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

SARAO vs GUEVARRA

No 4264 May 31, 1940

Plaintiff andappellee: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) Nightcame: plaintiffagain approached defendantthough hefound orificeof hervagina sufficientlylarge forhis 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 defendantincapable ofprocreationbut didnot incapacitate her to copulate

7) Under marriage law: marriage may beannulled ifthe party, was at the time of marriage, physically incapableof 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 evenafter 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 thecomplaint and has not been proved at the trial