
    Pujals v. Carlo.
    Appeal from the District Court of Mayagfiez.
    No. 118.
    Decided November 21, 1904.
    Divorce — Impotence.-—-When an action for divorce is based upon the absolute, perpetual and incurable impotence of one of the spouses, occurring after the marriage, such impotence must be fully proved.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    This is a declaratory action for divorce prosecuted in the former District Court of Mayagfiez by Eleuterio Pujáis y Quiñones, a clerk domiciled in said city, plaintiff, represented at first by Attorney Antonio Manrique de Lara and after-wards by Attorneys Ignacio Hidalgo and Herminio Díaz Navarro, the latter being appointed by the court to represent said plaintiff before this Supreme Court, against Maria Carlo y Ramirez, domiciled in San Germán, defendant, represented in the court of first instance by Attorney Miguel Juan y Llaneras, who did not. appear before this Supreme Court. The case is pending before us on an appeal taken by counsel for the plaintiff from the judgment rendered by aforesaid District Court of Mayagiiez, which reads as follows:
    “José Bleuterio Pujals contracted a religious marriage with Maria Carlo, in the city of San Germán, on October 30, 1883.
    “Said Bleuterio Pujals y Quiñones brought an action against Maria Carlo y Ramirez, setting forth that a year after their marriage his wife was seized with a terrible malady, which confined her to her bed and from which she has not been able to recover. She was deprived of power to move, and it is now some years since she had become absolutely and incurably impotent and unable to perform the matrimonial functions. Pujals had patiently endured this illness in the hope that she would recover her health, but instead of this, the malady was aggravated until it gave rise to the present complaint, after instituting proceedings to avoid litigation, as prescribed by law. He alleged that a divorce can be decreed, among other causes, for absolute and incurable physical impotence, occurring after marriage, according to section 19 of the Civil Marriage Law, and that by the Foraker Act all the rights of said civil law were made applicable to parties contracting religious marriage, which is also confirmed by the code in force. Pie closed praying that the divorce prayed for by Bleuterio Pujals y Quiñones from his wife be granted, with all the other provisions necessary for the effectiveness thereof.
    “The complaint being admitted, Maria Carlo y Ramírez and the district attorney were cited. The former, in her answer, alleged that the ground of the complaint was of no value, for although it was true that Maria Carlo y Ramírez, a year after her marriage had contracted articular rheumatism, which prevented the exercise of some bodily functions, this, however, did’ not deprive her of her generative organs, nor has it incapacitated her for the exercise of matrimonial functions; wherefore she prayed that the complaint be dismisssed, with such other pronouncements as might in justice be proper.
    “A day being set for the appearance of the parties, both proposed the testimony of expert witnesses. They were then cited for an oral hearing, at which appeared as expert Dr. Eurípedes López, accepted by both litigants, wbo declared at the trial that Maria Carlo y Ramirez was not incapacitated for carnal copulation.
    “All the provisions of law have been complied with in the conduct of this ease.
    “Judge James A. Erwin prepared the opinion of the court.
    “Absolute, perpetual and incurable impotence, occurring after marriage, has not been proved in these proceedings.
    “In view of the sixth cause for divorce, mentioned under section 164 of the Civil Code, and section 63 of General Orders, No. 118, series of 1899, we adjudge that we should dismiss, and do dismiss, the action for divorce instituted by Eleuterio Pujals y Quiñones against Maria Carlo y Ramírez, and accordingly absolve her therefrom, with costs against Eleuterio Pujals y Quiñones. So by this our judgment we pronounce, order and sign. — Arturo Aponte, J. A. Erwin, Enrique González Darden”
    From the foregoing judgment counsel for the plaintiff, Eleuterio Pujals. y Quiñones, took an appeal, which was allowed, both for stay of proceedings and for review. The record being forwarded to this Supreme Court after citation of the parties, the appeal was conducted under the proper procedure, and a day was set for the hearing, at which appeared the attorney for appellant, Herminio Díaz Navarro, and the fiscal of this court, who opposed the appeal.
    
      Mr. Dias Navarro, for appellant.
    
      Mr. Bossy, Fiscal, for the People.
    The respondent did not appear.
   Me. Chief Justice Quiñones,

after making the foregoing-statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the judgment appealed from are accepted.

We adjudge that we should affirm, and do affirm, the aforesaid judgment, with costs against the appellant.

Affirmed.

Justices Hernandez, Figueras, MacLeary and Wolf concurred.  