Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesar Encelan - g.r. No. 170022 - January 9, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CESAR ENCELAN | G.R. No. 170022 | Januar !" 201# $OCTRINE% The evaluation of the wife’s interpersonal problems with co-workers does not suffice as a consideration for the conclusion that she was – at the time of her marriage – psychologically incapacitated incapacitated to enter into a marital union. A wife’s psychological psychological fitness as a spouse cannot simply be equated with her professional/work relationship workplace obligations and responsibilities are poles apart from their  marital counterparts. !hile both spring from human relationship" their relatedness and relevance to one another should be fully established for them to be compared or to serve as measures of comparison with one 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 Alvin ere0. ,ometime in &''&" *olita allegedly left the con1ugal home with her children and lived with Alvin. 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 *olita’s psychological incapacity. *olita denied that she had an affair with Alvin 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 their  home because of irreconcilable differences with her mother-in-law.  At the trial" )esar affirmed his allegations of *olita’s infidelity and subsequent abandonment of the family home. 5e testified that he continued to provide financial support for *olita and their children even after he learned of her illicit affair with Alvin. 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 form of ma1or psychiatric illness"9 but had been 9unable to provide the e:pectations e:pected of her for a good and lasting marital relationship9 her 9transferring from one 1ob to the other depicts some interpersonal problems with co-workers as well as her impatience in attaining her ambitions9 and 9her  refusal to go with her husband abroad signifies her reluctance to work out a good marital and family relationship.9 The 4T) 4T) declar declared ed )esar’ )esar’s s marri marriage age to *olit *olita a void" void" findin finding g suffi sufficie cient nt basis basis to declar declare e *olita *olita psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The petitioner appealed to the )A. The )A originally set aside the 4T)’s verdict" finding that *olita’s abandonment of the con1ugal dwelling and infidelity were not serious cases of personality disorder/psychological illness and that infidelity 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 *olita’s serious psychological incapacity that resulted in her gross infidelity; <&= *olita’s unwarranted refusal to perform her marital obligations to )esar and <$= *olita’s willful and deliberate act of abandoning the con1ugal dwelling.

ISSUE; ISSUE; !hether !hether there e:ists e:ists sufficient sufficient basis basis to nullify nullify )esar’s marriage marriage to *olita *olita on the ground of  psychological incapacity – RULING; RULING ; The )ourt granted the petition on the ground that no sufficient basis e:ists to annul )esar’s marriage to *olita on the ground of psychological incapacity. incapacity.  Article >3 of the 7amily )ode governs psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of  marriage. ?t provides that 9a marriage contracted by any party who" at the time of the celebration" was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage" shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest manifest only after its solemni0ation.9 solemni0ation.9 sychological incapacity incapacity contemplates 9downright incapacity or inability to take cogni0ance of and to assume the basic marital obligations9 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 condition of the errant spouse. )esar’s testimony failed to prove *olita’s alleged psychological incapacity. )esar testified on the dates when he learned of *olita’s 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 merely mentioned in passing *olita’s alleged affair with Alvin Alvin and her abandonment of the con1ugal dwelling. ,e:ual infidelity and abandonment of the con1ugal dwelling do not constitute psychological incapacity these are simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute psychological incapacity" it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations. 8o evidence on record e:ists to support )esar’s allegation that *olita’s infidelity and abandonment were manifestations of any psychological illness. 7urther" the psychological evaluation even established that *olita did not suffer from any ma1or psychiatric illness. 6r. 7lores’ observation on *olita’s interpersonal problems with co-workers" does not suffice as a consideration for the conclusion that she was – at the time of her marriage – psychologically incapacitated incapacitated to enter into a marital union with )esar. Aside from the time element involved" a wife’s psychological fitnes fitness s as a spouse spouse cannot cannot simply simply be equate equated d with with her profes professio sional nal/w /work ork relati relations onship hip workpl workplace ace obligations and responsibilities are poles apart from their marital counterparts. !hile both spring from human relationship" their relatedness and relevance to one another should be fully established for them to be compared or to serve as measures of comparison with one another. To be sure" the evaluation report 6r. 7lores prepared and submitted cannot serve this purpose. 6r. 7lores’ further belief that *olita’s refusal to go with with )esar )esar abroad abroad signifie signified d a reluct reluctanc ance e to work work out a good good marit marital al relati relations onship hip is a mere mere generali0ation unsupported by facts and is" in fact" a rash conclusion that this )ourt cannot support.