195.
Repubic v Encelan But upon reconsideration, the CA set aside its original decision and affirmed the
G.R. No. 170022
January 9, 2013
Topic: Legal Separation
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
Respondent: Cesar Encelan
Ponente: , J. Brion
DOCTRINE: Sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling are grounds
for legal separation.
FACTS: Respondent, Cesar Encelan married Lolita on August 25, 1979. The union
bore two children. Beginning in 1984, Cesar worked as an OFW in Saudia Arabia.
While there, he learned that Lolita had been having an affair with an Alvin Perez.
Then sometime in 1991, Lolita allegedly left the conjugal home to live Alvin, taking
their children with her. 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 Lolita’s psychological incapacity
under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Lolita denied having an affair with Alvin. She claimed that they were just business
associates. She insisted that she was not psychologically incapacitated and that she
left their home because of irreconcilable differences with her mother-in-law.
At the trial, Cesar presented the psychological evaluation report on Lolita prepared
by Dr. Fareda Flores of the National Center for Mental Health. Dr. Flores stated in
her report that Lolita was not suffering from any form of major psychiatric illness,
but had been unable to meet the expectations of her for a good and lasting marital
relationship. Lolita’s frequent transferring of jobs showed “interpersonal problems
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.”
The RTC, in its decision, declared the marriage void on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
Originally, on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and
held that abandonment of the conjugal dwelling and infidelity were not serious
cases of psychological illness or of any personality disorder, and therefore not a
ground to declare the marriage void under Art. 36, FC.
decision of the RTC. The CA found two circumstances indicative of Lolita’s serious
psychological incapacity that resulted in her gross infidelity: 1) Lolita’s unwarranted
refusal to perform her marital obligations; and 2) Lolita’s willful and deliberate act
of abandoning the conjugal dwelling.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed this present petition for review on certiorari
challenging the decision of the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling
is sufficient basis to nullify the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
RULING: No sufficient basis exists to annul Cesar’s marriage to Lolita on the ground
of psychological incapacity. However, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the
conjugal dwelling are grounds for legal separation.
Marriage is an inviolable social institution. And any doubt should be resolved in
favor of its existence and continuation and against dissolution and nullity. It cannot
be dissolved at the whim of the parties, nor by transgressions made by one party to
the other during the marriage.
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. Moreover, such disordered personality must be grave, incurable and
must have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage (juridical
antecedence).
The evidence on record presented by Cesar were his own testimony on Lolita’s
infidelity and abandonment, as well as the psychological evaluation report of Dr.
Flores. Such evidence is insufficient to prove psychological incapacity because it did
not show any proof of a disordered personality. In fact, the report of Dr. Flores
actually established that Lolita did not suffer from any major psychiatric illness.
DISPOSITIVE: 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.