Republic vs.

Encelan
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner vs. Cesar Encelan, Respondent
G.R. No. 170022; January 09, 2013

Facts: Cesar Married Lolita, and they had two children. To support the family, Cesar went abroad
and worked as an OFW in Saudi Arabia. After two years of working abroad, Cesar learned that
Lolita is having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez, and thereafter, left the conjugal dwelling together
with the two children. But even with such circumstances, Cesar never failed to send financial
support for the family. On June 1995, Cesar filed a petition against Lolita for the declaration of the
nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas psychological incapacity. Cesar, during a hearing even
presented a psychological evaluation report on Lolita with the finding that Lolita was not suffering
from any form of psychiatric illness, but had been unable to provide the expectations expected of her
for a good and lasting marital relationship.... and her transferring from one job to another depicts
some interpersonal problem with co-workers as well as her impatience in attaining her ambitions ....
and her refusal to go with her husband abroad signifies her reluctance to work out a good marital
and family relationship... Cesar found ally in RTC as it gave him a favourable decision which
declared his marriage to Lolita null and void. The court of Appeals also affirmed the decision of
RTC, and thereafter, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court, thus, this case.

Issue: Whether or not psychological incapacity is indeed present in the person of Lolita as to
nullify a valid marriage.

Ruling: No. Marriage is an inviolable social institution protected by the State and any doubt
should be resolved in favour of its existence and continuation against its dissolution and nullity. In
this case, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling do not necessarily 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 actually prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential
marital obligations, which the court found not present in the person of Lolita.
[Civil Law: marriage; psychological incapacity]




G.R. No. 170022 - Republic of the Philippines v. Cesar Encelan

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 170022 : January 9, 2013
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CESAR ENCELAN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari
1
filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines challenging the
October 7, 2005 amended decision
2
of the Court of Appeals (CA) that reconsidered its March 22, 2004
decision
3
(original decision) in CA-G.R. CV No. 75583. In its original decision, the CA set aside the June 5,
2002 decision
4
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47, in Civil Case No. 95-74257, which The
Factual Antecedents
On August 25, 1979, Cesar married Lolita
5
and the union bore two children, Maricar and Manny.
6
To support
his family, Cesar went to work in Saudi Arabia on May 15, 1984. On June 12, 1986, Cesar, while still in
Saudi Arabia, learned that Lolita had been having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez. Sometime in 1991,
7
Lolita
allegedly left the conjugal home with her children and lived with Alvin. Since then, Cesar and Lolita had been
separated. On June 16, 1995, Cesar filed with the RTC a petition against Lolita for the declaration of the
nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas psychological incapacity.
8
?r?l 1
Lolita denied that she had an affair with Alvin; she contended that Alvin used to be an associate in her
promotions business. She insisted that she is not psychologically incapacitated and that she left their home
because of irreconcilable differences with her mother-in-law.
9
?r?l 1
At the trial, Cesar affirmed his allegations of Lolitas infidelity and subsequent abandonment of the family
home.
10
He testified that he continued to provide financial support for Lolita and their children even after he
learned of her illicit affair with Alvin.
11
?r?l1
Cesar presented the psychological evaluation report
12
on Lolita prepared by Dr. Fareda Fatima Flores of the
National Center for Mental Health. Dr. Flores found that Lolita was "not suffering from any form of major
psychiatric illness,"
13
but had been "unable to provide the expectations expected of her for a good and
lasting marital relationship";
14
her "transferring from one job to the other depicts some interpersonal
problems with co-workers as well as her impatience in attaining her ambitions";
15
and "her refusal to go with
her husband abroad signifies her reluctance to work out a good marital and family relationship."
16
?r?l1
The RTC Ruling
In its June 5, 2002 decision,
17
the RTC declared Cesars marriage to Lolita void, finding sufficient basis to
declare Lolita psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.
The petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling
The CA originally
18
set aside the RTCs verdict, finding that Lolitas abandonment of the conjugal dwelling and
infidelity were not serious cases of personality disorder/psychological illness. Lolita merely refused to comply
with her marital obligations which she was capable of doing. The CA significantly observed that infidelity is
only a ground for legal separation, not for the declaration of the nullity of a marriage.
Cesar sought reconsideration
19
of the CAs decision and, in due course, attained his objective. The CA set
aside its original decision and entered another, which affirmed the RTCs decision. In its amended
decision,
20
the CA found two circumstances indicative of Lolitas serious psychological incapacity that resulted
in her gross infidelity: (1) Lolitas unwarranted refusal to perform her marital obligations to Cesar; and (2)
Lolitas willful and deliberate act of abandoning the conjugal dwelling.
The OSG then filed the present petition.
The Petition
The OSG argues that Dr. Flores psychological evaluation report did not disclose that Lolita had been
suffering from a psychological illness nor did it establish its juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability;
infidelity and abandonment do not constitute psychological incapacity, but are merely grounds for legal
separation.
The Case for the Respondent
Cesar submits that Lolitas infidelity and refusal to perform her marital obligations established her grave and
incurable psychological incapacity.
The Issue
The case presents to us the legal issue of whether there exists sufficient basis to nullify Cesars marriage to
Lolita on the ground of psychological incapacity.
The Courts Ruling
We grant the petition. No sufficient basis exists to annul Cesars marriage to Lolita on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
Applicable Law and Jurisprudence
on Psychological Incapacity
Article 36 of the Family Code governs psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage. It provides that "a 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 only after its solemnization."
In interpreting this provision, we have repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates
"downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations";
21
not
merely the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
22
The plaintiff
bears the burden of proving the juridical antecedence (i.e., the existence at the time of the celebration of
marriage), gravity and incurability of the condition of the errant spouse.
23
?r?l1
Cesar failed to prove Lolitas
psychological incapacity
In this case, Cesars testimony failed to prove Lolitas alleged psychological incapacity. Cesar testified on the
dates when he learned of Lolitas alleged affair and her subsequent abandonment of their home,
24
as well as
his continued financial support to her and their children even after he learned of the affair,
25
but he merely
mentioned in passing Lolitas alleged affair with Alvin and her abandonment of the conjugal dwelling.
In any event, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily
constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation.
26
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.
27
No evidence on record exists to support Cesars allegation that Lolitas infidelity and
abandonment were manifestations of any psychological illness.
Cesar mistakenly relied on Dr. Flores psychological evaluation report on Lolita to prove her alleged
psychological incapacity. The psychological evaluation, in fact, established that Lolita did not suffer from any
major psychiatric illness.
28
Dr. Flores observation on Lolitas interpersonal problems with co-workers,
29
to our
mind, does not suffice as a consideration for the conclusion that she was at the time of her marriage
psychologically incapacitated to enter into a marital union with Cesar. Aside from the time element involved,
a wifes 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. While 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 Dr. Flores prepared and submitted cannot serve this purpose. Dr. Flores further belief that Lolitas
refusal to go with Cesar abroad signified a reluctance to work out a good marital relationship
30
is a mere
generalization unsupported by facts and is, in fact, a rash conclusion that this Court cannot support.
In sum, we find that Cesar failed to prove the existence of Lolitas psychological incapacity; thus, the CA
committed a reversible error when it reconsidered its original decision.
Once again, we stress that marriage is an inviolable social institution
31
protected by the State. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of its existence its existence and continuation and against its dissolution and
nullity.
32
It cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties nor by transgressions made by one party to the
other during the marriage.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the October 7, 2005 amended decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75583. Accordingly, we DISMISS respondent Cesar Encelan's petition for
declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lolita Castillo-Encelan.
Costs against the respondent.
SO ORDERED.