MENCIANO v.
SAN JOSE
28 May 1951 | Hugo, J| Probate of the Will|
Reproduction
PETITIONER: Matilde Menciano, in her behalf and
in behalf of the minors of Carlo Magno Neri and
Faustino Neri, Jr.
RESPONDENT: Paz Neri San Jose and Rodolfo
Pelaez
SUMMARY: In the course of the settlement
proceedings of the estate of Faustino Neri San Jose,
Menciano (in her behalf and in behalf of her minor
kids) filed a motion for declaration of heirs alleging
that she is the widow of the deceased and that the
couple had children, Carlo and Faustino Jr. (one
legitimate and one legitimated). Defendants San Jose
and Pelaez denied the allegations and further
alleging that the deceased was suffering dementia
and that the latter was sterile, unable to procreate,
and was impotent and congenitally sterile. The Court
held that Faustino Jr. is conclusively presumed to be
the legitimate son of couple. As to Carlo, the Court
cannot review the finding of the lower court that
Carlo has not been acknowledged as a natural child
because the plaintiffs did not appeal.
DOCTRINE: Impotency being an abnormal condition
should not be presumed. The presumptio is in favor of
potency. Impotency is not synonymous with sterility.
Impotency is the physical inability to have sexual
intercourse while sterility is the lack of fertility in the
reproductive elemnts of either sex.
FACTS:
1. The present case involves the proceedings for
the settlement of the estate of FAUSTINO
NERI SAN JOSE, who had died on 11 October
1944. In the course of proceedings,
MENCIANO filed a motion for declaration of
heirs on behalf of herself and her minor
children. She alleged that she and the
deceased had lived as husband and wife,
without impediment to marry, before their
marriage on 24 September 1944. During such
time CARLO NERI had been born out of
wedlock, but was legitimized when they
married. FAUSTINO Jr. was born in April
1945 in lawful wedlock.
2. PAZ, the executrix, and RODOLFO, the
designated universal heir in the will, denied
her allegations and further alleged that
FAUSTINO was suffering senile dementia
caused by anemia since 1943, which was
aggravated on 9 September 1944 when the
province of Misamis Oriental, where they
resided was bombed by American planes.
Thus, even if the marriage was solemnized, it
lacked legal requisites as FAUSTINO was
deprived of free will due to age, sickness and
bombardment.
3. Furthermore, the defendants alleged that
FAUSTINO was impotent and congenitally
sterile like his siblings, and had no children.
Finally, they filed a counterclaim for P286,000
in cash as well as for jewels and certain
properties illegally retained and disposed by
MENCIANO.
RULING: Petition GRANTED. Case REMANDED to
CTA for further proceedings.
ISSUES-HELD-RATIO
WON the marriage between MENCIANO and
FAUSTINO Sr. was valid: YES
• MENCIANO introduced in evidence
two applications for marriage license
signed by the respective alleged
spouses, the certificate for immediate
issuance of marriage license and the
marriage contract. Inasmuch as these
are public documents, their validity
can be assailed only by strong, clear
and convincing oral testimony.
• The testimony of the defendants, that
FAUSTINO was so weak that he could
not even talk coherently, is too
sweeping. Father EDRALIN stated
that he had to postpone the marriage
for two days until FAUSTINO,
although weak, had a clear mind. This
is corroborated by the signatures of
FAUSTINO in the above-mentioned
documentary exhibits. His signatures
were uniform and had many
flourishes, such that it could not have
been made by one not of sound mind
and fair physical condition, or by one
who was a nervous wreck as alleged
by defendants.
• The Court had stated that “[n]either
old age, physical infirmities,
feebleness of mind, weakness of the
memory, the appointment of a
guardian, nor eccentricities are
sufficient singly or jointly to show
testamentary incapacity.” (Torres v.
Lopez)
It had also stated that ‘[n]either senile debility, nor
deafness, nor blindness, nor poor memory, is by itself
sufficient to establish the presumption that the
person suffering therefrom is not in the full enjoyment
of his mental faculties, when there is sufficient
evidence of his mental sanity at the time of the
execution of the will.” (Sancho v. Abella)
While these doctrines apply to testamentary capacity,
there is no reason why it should not be applied to
capacity to contract marriage.
WON CARLO and FAUSTINO Jr. are legitimate
children of FAUSTINO Sr. and MENCIANO:
FAUSTINO, YES; CARLO, NO
• FAUSTINO Jr. was born on 24 April 1945,
more than 180 after the marriage of his
parents in September 1944, and less than 300
days after the death of his father dissolving
the marriage in October 1944. Rule 123,
Section 68(c) of the Rules of Court then
provided:
(c) The issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband,
who is not impotent, is indisputably presumed to be
legitimate, if not born within the one hundred and
eighty days immediately succeeding the marriage, or
after the expiration of three hundred days following
its dissolution;
• There is no question that his FAUSTINO and
MENCIANO co-habited before and after the
marriage. Thus, of the requisites stated, the
only one possibly not met is potency.
Impotency being an abnormal condition
should not be presumed. The presumption is
in favor of potency.
The best evidence that the deceased was potent is the
statement of Dr. GARCIA that FAUSTINO obtained
his specimen of semen for testing for spermatozoa by
following his advice of using a condom and a woman.
That the deceased was able to produce the specimen
by said means shows conclusively that he was potent.
Impotency is not synonymous with sterility.
Impotency is the physical inability to have sexual
intercourse; it is different from sterility.1
Consequently, the requisite potency also existed.
• Plaintiffs’ objection to the introduction of
evidence as to sterility, should have been
sustained.
However, even if such evidence were to be considered,
these were the results of tests made in 1940. A man
may not have spermatozoa at a certain time, but may
have it previous or subsequent to the testing. Dr.
MARFORI, one of the doctors who conducted the
tests, testified that it would have been better if there
was an examination every year.
Furthermore, the evidence of testing by another
doctor, Dr. GARCIA, in Cebu cannot be accorded
much weight as the testimony of the nephew stated
that the deceased never left Misamis Oriental in
December 1940, when it was allegedly conducted.
In any case, evidence of sterility would not overturn
the conclusive presumption provided in the earlier
mentioned section.
• As to CARLO NERI, the court below ruled
that he was not acknowledged as a natural
child, and cannot be legitimated. Since the
plaintiffs did not appeal, this finding can no
longer be reviewed.
WON MENCIANO had retained or illegally disposed
of cash, jewels or certain property: NO, testimony on
this point contradictory.
• The testimony of RODOLFO is that he
delivered P250,000 to his uncle FAUSTINO in
1939 after exchanging it for bills of larger
denomination for him in the bank. This is
contradicted by the testimony of PAZ NERI
that FAUSTINO was distrustful of relatives
and friends, and he carried his money, jewels,
and documents in a sack. Such behavior, in
turn, is unbelievable in 1939, as the country
was not yet at war and FAUSTINO could
deposited his assets in the bank.
• CLOTILDE GALARRITA testified that
MENCIANO showed her the sum and counted
it in her presence. This is unbelievable as this
she could well have counted it alone without
exposing herself to robbery.
• Finally, there is no satisfactory evidence that
MENCIANO had misappropriated jewelry as
the jewels she had in her possession were
given to her for the benefit of the children.

1 In so ruling, the Court cited Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, The

American Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Stedman’s Practical
Medical Dictionary, Webster’s New International Dictionary,
Corpus Juris (source abbreviated “C.J.”), and The Columbia
Encyclopedia.
CHI MING TSOI v CA
January 16, 1997| TORRES, J | REPRODUCTION
PETITIONER: CHI MING TSOI
RESPONDENTS: COURT OF APPEALS and GINA
LAO-TSOI
SUMMARY: Chi Ming Tsoi was married to Gina Lao-
Tsoi. Gina filed before the RTC a petition to have the
marriage annulled on the ground of psychological
incapacity. She alleged that they never had sexual
intercourse and that Chi was indifferent to her. The
RTC granted the petition and nullified their marriage.
CA and SC affirmed.
DOCTRINE: The issue of whether or not the appellant
is psychologically incapacitated to discharge a basic
marital obligation was resolved upon a review of both
the documentary and testimonial evidence on record.
Choi admitted that he did not have sexual relations
with his wife after almost ten months of cohabitation,
and it appears that he is not suffering from any
physical disability. Such abnormal reluctance or
unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly
indicative of a serious personality disorder which to
the mind of this Court clearly demonstrates an 'utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage' within the meaning of
Article 36 of the Family Code.
FACTS:
1. In 1988, the plaintiff married the defendant at
the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros Manila.
After the celebration of their marriage and
wedding reception at the South Villa, Makati,
they went and proceeded to the house of
defendant’s mother. There, they slept together
on the same bed in the same room for the first
night of their married life. No love-making!
Defendant just went to bed, turned his back to
his wife and slept. They went to Baguio for
their honeymoon. No love-making! The
defendant avoided her by taking a long walk
during siesta time or by just sleeping on a
ISSUES:
rocking chair located at the living room. They
slept together in the same room and on the
same bed since May 22, 1988 until March 15,
1989 (roughly 10 mos).
2. So, they submitted themselves for medical
examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag, a
urologist at the Chinese General Hospital.
Results of their physical examinations: she is healthy,
normal and still a virgin, while that of her husband's
examination was kept confidential up to this time.
While no medicine was prescribed for her, the doctor
RULING: Petition DENIED. CA AFFIRMED.
prescribed medications for her husband which was
RATIO:
also kept confidential. No treatment was given to her.
For her husband, he was asked by the doctor to return
but he never did.
3. Plaintiff-respondent: the defendant is
impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not
show his penis. She had observed the
defendant using an eyebrow pencil and
sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother.
Defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to
acquire or maintain his residency status here
in the country and to publicly maintain the
appearance of a normal man. Not willing to
reconcile with her husband.
4. Defendant-petitioner: loves her very much; he
has no defect on his part and he is physically
and psychologically capable; and since the
relationship is still very young if there is any
differences between the two of them, it can
still be reconciled. Further, admitted that
since their marriage until their separation,
there was no sexual contact between them.
But, the reason for this was that every time he
wants to have sexual intercourse with his
wife, she always avoided him. Two reasons
why the plaintiff filed this case against him—
(1) that she is afraid that she will be forced to
return the pieces of jewelry of his mother, and,
(2) that her husband, the defendant, will
consummate their marriage.
5. The defendant submitted himself to another
physical examination, this one by Dr. Sergio
Alteza, Jr., for the purpose of finding out
whether he is impotent. Dr Alteza asked the
defendant to masturbate to find out whether
or not he has an erection and he found out
that from the original size of two (2) inches, or
five (5) centimeters, the penis of the defendant
lengthened by one (1) inch and one
centimeter. The defendant had only a soft
erection which is why his penis is not in its
full length. But, still is capable of further
erection, in that with his soft erection, the
defendant is capable of having sexual
intercourse with a woman.
6. RTC: No collusion or fabricated evidence. Void
marriage; psychological incapacity of both. CA
affirmed.
1) WoN CA erred in affirming the conclusions of
the lower court that there was no sexual
intercourse between the parties without
making any findings of fact.—NO.
2) WoN the refusal to have sexual communion is
a psychological incapacity—YES.
3) WoN CA erred in affirming the annulment of
the marriage decreed by the lower court
without fully satisfying itself that there was
no collusion between them.—NO.
1. Petitioner argues that the conclusion drawn
by the trial court on the admissions and
confessions of the parties is misplaced since it
could have been a product of collusion; and
that in actions for annulment of marriage, the
 material facts alleged in the complaint shall
always be proved (Section 1, Rule 19 of the
Rules of Court). SC: The assailed decision was
not based on such a judgment on the
pleadings. Private respondent testified under
oath after which she was cross-examined by
the adverse party; she thereby presented
evidence in the form of a testimony. Likewise,
the RTC decision wasn’t based on stipulation
of facts. As regards alleged collusion, the fact
that the case has reached this Court only
shows that there is no collusion between the
parties.
2. Petitioner argues that CA erred in holding
that both were psychologically incapacitated,
without conducting in-depth analysis of
reasons for refusal to make love. SC: actually,
neither lower courts made a finding as to who
refused to make love with whom. Since the
action to declare the marriage void may be
filed by either party, i.e., even the
psychologically incapacitated, that question
becomes immaterial. Petitioner claims that
there is no independent evidence on record to
show that any of the parties is suffering from
psychological incapacity.
3. Petitioner also claims that he wanted to have
sex with private respondent; that the reason
for private respondent's refusal may not be
psychological but physical disorder as stated
above. SC: Then petitioner could have
discussed with private respondent or asked
her why she balks and avoids him every time
he wanted to have sex. Nothing in the record
show that he had tried. Since it is petitioner's
claim that the reason is not psychological but
perhaps physical disorder on the part of
private respondent, it became incumbent upon
him to prove such a claim.
4. One of the essential marital obligations under
the Family Code is "To procreate children
based on the universal principle that
procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage."
Constant nonfulfillment of this obligation will
finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of
the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless
and protracted refusal of one of the parties to
fulfill the above marital obligation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.
JIMENEZ V CANIZARES motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the
August 31, 1960 | Padilla, J. | Rule 45 | present petition.
PETITIONER: JOEL JIMENEZ ISSUE:
RESPONDENT: REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES WON lower court was correct in annulling the
marriage. – NO
SUMMARY: Plaintiff husband filed a complaint to
annul his marriage with his wife on the ground that RULING: GRANTED, decree set aside and remanded.
the latter’s vagina was too small to allow copulation.
At the hearing, only his testimony was offered to RATIO:
prove that point. The court ordered the wife to submit 1. The annulment of the marriage in question was
to a medical examination but the wife failed to decreed upon the sole testimony of the husband who
comply. She didn’t even file an answer. Lower court was expected to give testimony tending or aiming at
annulled the marriage. SC set aside the decree and securing the annulment of his marriage he sought and
held: seeks. Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be
deemed to have been satisfactorily established, becase
DOCTRINE: "Impotency being an abnormal condition from the commencement of the proceedings until the
should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor entry of the decree she had abstained from taking
of potency." The lone testimony of the husband that part therein. Although her refusal to be examined or
his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse failure to appear in court show indifference on her
is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have part, yet from such attitude the presumption arising
bound them together as husband and wife. out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or be
inferred because women of this country are by nature
FACTS: coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to a
1. Jimenez filed a complaint to annul his marriage to physical examination unless compelled to by
defendant Cañizares contracted on 3 August 1950. competent authority. This the Court may do without
The ground relied upon in the complaint is that the doing violence to and infringing in this case is not self-
orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow incrimination. She is not charged with any offense.
the penetration of a male organ or penis for She is not being compelled to be a witness against
copulation; that the condition of her genitals as herself. "Impotency being an abnormal condition
described above existed at the time of marriage and should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor
continues to exist; and that for that reason he left the of potency." The lone testimony of the husband that
conjugal home two nights and one day after they had his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse
been married. is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have
2. The wife was served a copy of the complaint but did bound them together as husband and wife.
not file an answer and refused to undergo a physical
examination, despite an order from the Court
requiring the defendant to submit to a physical
examination.
3. After hearing, at which the defendant was not
present, on 11 April 1957 the Court entered a decree
annulling the marriage between the plaintiff and the
defendant.
4. On 26 April 1957 the city attorney filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decree thus entered, upon the
ground, among others, that the defendant's impotency
has not been satisfactorily established as required by
law; that she had not been physically examined
because she had refused to be examined; that instead
of annulling the marriage the Court should have
punished her for contempt of court and compelled her
to undergo a physical examination and submit a
medical certificate; and that the decree sought to be
reconsidered would open the door to married couples,
who want to end their marriage to collude or connive
with each other by just alleging impotency of one of
them. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed or
that the wife be subjected to a physical examination.
Pending resolution of his motion, the city attorney
timely appealed from the decree. On 13 May 1957 the