5/19/2018 Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesar Encelan - g.r.
No. 170022 - January 9, 2013
1/3
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CESAR ENCELAN | G.R. No. 170022
| Januar !" 201#
$OCTRINE% The evaluation of the wifes interpersonal problems
with co-workers does not suffice as aconsideration for the
conclusion that she was at the time of her marriage psychologically
incapacitatedto enter into a marital union. A wifes psychological
fitness as a spouse cannot simply be equated with
her professional/work relationship workplace obligations and
responsibilities are poles apart from theirmarital counterparts.
!hile both spring from human relationship" their relatedness and
relevance to oneanother should be fully established for them to be
compared or to serve as measures of comparison withone another.
FACTS%
#n August $%" &'('" )esar married *olita and the union bore
two children" +aricar and +anny. To
support his family" )esar went to work in ,audi Arabia on +ay
&%" &'.
!hile still in ,audi Arabia" )esar learned that *olita had been
having an illicit affair with Alvin ere0.
,ometime in &''&" *olita allegedly left the con1ugal
home with her children and lived with Alvin. ,ince
then" )esar and *olita had been separated.
#n 2une &3" &''%" )esar filed with the 4T) a petition
against *olita for the declaration of the nullity of
his marriage based on *olitas psychological incapacity.
*olita denied that she had an affair with Alvin and contended
that Alvin used to be an associate in her
promotions business. ,he insisted that she is not
psychologically incapacitated and that she left theirhome because
of irreconcilable differences with her mother-in-law.
At the trial" )esar affirmed his allegations of *olitas
infidelity and subsequent abandonment of the
family home. 5e testified that he continued to provide financial
support for *olita and their childreneven after he learned of her
illicit affair with Alvin.
)esar presented the psychological evaluation report on *olita
prepared by 6r. 7areda 7atima 7lores
of the 8ational )enter for +ental 5ealth. 6r. 7lores found that
*olita was 9not suffering from any formof ma1or psychiatric
illness"9 but had been 9unable to provide the e:pectations e:pected
of her for agood and lasting marital relationship9 her
9transferring from one 1ob to the other depicts someinterpersonal
problems with co-workers as well as her impatience in attaining her
ambitions9 and 9herrefusal to go with her husband abroad signifies
her reluctance to work out a good marital and
familyrelationship.9
The 4T) declared )esars marriage to *olita void" finding
sufficient basis to declare *olita
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations. The petitioner appealedto the )A.
The )A originally set aside the 4T)s verdict" finding that
*olitas abandonment of the con1ugaldwelling and infidelity were not
serious cases of personality disorder/psychological illness and
thatinfidelity is only a ground for legal separation" not for the
declaration of the nullity of a marriage.
5owever" upon motion of )esar" the )A set aside its original
decision and found two circumstances
indicative of *olitas serious psychological incapacity that
resulted in her gross infidelity;
5/19/2018 Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesar Encelan - g.r.
No. 170022 - January 9, 2013
2/3
ISSUE; !hether there e:ists sufficient basis to nullify )esars
marriage to *olita on the ground ofpsychological incapacity
RULING;
The )ourt granted the petition on the ground that no sufficient
basis e:ists to annul )esars marriage to
*olita on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Article >3 of the 7amily )ode governs psychological
incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity ofmarriage. ?t
provides that 9a marriage contracted by any party who" at the time
of the celebration" waspsychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations of marriage" shall likewisebe
void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemni0ation.9 sychological incapacitycontemplates 9downright
incapacity or inability to take cogni0ance of and to assume the
basic maritalobligations9 not merely the refusal" neglect or
difficulty" much less ill will" on the part of the errant
spouse.The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the 1uridical
antecedence" gravity and incurability of the conditionof the errant
spouse.
)esars testimony failed to prove *olitas alleged psychological
incapacity. )esar testified on the dateswhen he learned of *olitas
alleged affair and her subsequent abandonment of their home" as
well as his
continued financial support to her and their children even after
he learned of the affair" but he merelymentioned in passing *olitas
alleged affair with Alvin and her abandonment of the con1ugal
dwelling.
,e:ual infidelity and abandonment of the con1ugal dwelling do
not constitute psychological incapacitythese are simply grounds for
legal separation. To constitute psychological incapacity" it must
be shownthat the unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations
of a disordered personality that completelyprevented the erring
spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations. 8o
evidence on recorde:ists to support )esars allegation that *olitas
infidelity and abandonment were manifestations of anypsychological
illness.
7urther" the psychological evaluation even established that
*olita did not suffer from any ma1or psychiatricillness. 6r. 7lores
observation on *olitas interpersonal problems with co-workers" does
not suffice as aconsideration for the conclusion that she was at
the time of her marriage psychologically incapacitatedto enter into
a marital union with )esar. Aside from the time element involved" a
wifes psychologicalfitness as a spouse cannot simply be equated
with her professional/work relationship workplaceobligations and
responsibilities are poles apart from their marital counterparts.
!hile both spring fromhuman relationship" their relatedness and
relevance to one another should be fully established for them tobe
compared or to serve as measures of comparison with one another. To
be sure" the evaluation report6r. 7lores prepared and submitted
cannot serve this purpose. 6r. 7lores further belief that *olitas
refusalto go with )esar abroad signified a reluctance to work out a
good marital relationship is a meregenerali0ation unsupported by
facts and is" in fact" a rash conclusion that this )ourt cannot
support.
