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 a
consideration for the conclusion that she was at the time of her marriage psychologically incapacitated
to 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 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 /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 their
home 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 children
even 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 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) declared )esars marriage to *olita void" finding sufficient basis to declare *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 *olitas 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 *olitas serious psychological incapacity that resulted in her gross infidelity; <&= *olitas
unwarranted refusal to perform her marital obligations to )esar and <$= *olitas willful and deliberate
act of abandoning the con1ugal dwelling.
ISSUE; !hether there e:ists sufficient basis to nullify )esars marriage to *olita on the ground of
psychological 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 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 only after its solemni0ation.9 /sychological 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.
)esars testimony failed to prove *olitas alleged psychological incapacity. )esar testified on the dates
when 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 merely
mentioned 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 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 )esars allegation that *olitas 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 *olitas 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
to enter into a marital union with )esar. 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. !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 *olitas refusal
to go with )esar abroad signified a reluctance to work out a good marital relationship is a mere
generali0ation unsupported by facts and is" in fact" a rash conclusion that this )ourt cannot support.