Title
Republic vs. Encelan
Case
G.R. No. 170022
Decision Date
Jan 9, 2013
Cesar sought nullity of marriage due to Lolita's alleged psychological incapacity, citing infidelity and abandonment. The Supreme Court ruled that these acts, even if proven, did not meet the legal standard for nullity under Article 36, upholding the marriage's validity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170022)

Factual Antecedents

Cesar married Lolita on August 25, 1979, and the couple had two children during their union. In pursuit of financial stability, Cesar worked in Saudi Arabia starting May 15, 1984. He discovered Lolita's alleged illicit affair with Alvin Perez on June 12, 1986. By 1991, Lolita had reportedly left the conjugal home to live with Alvin, resulting in their separation. On June 16, 1995, Cesar filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking to declare their marriage null based on Lolita's psychological incapacity. Though Lolita denied the affair and claimed she left due to irreconcilable differences with her mother-in-law, Cesar maintained that he provided financial support to her and their children even after the allegations surfaced.

The RTC Ruling

In its decision rendered on June 5, 2002, the RTC found sufficient grounds to declare the marriage void, determining that Lolita was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her marital obligations. The Petitioner, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA Ruling

Initially, the CA reversed the RTC’s ruling, concluding that Lolita’s actions of abandonment and infidelity did not amount to serious psychological disorders but merely indicated a refusal to meet her marital responsibilities. However, upon Cesar's motion for reconsideration, the CA ultimately affirmed the RTC’s decision in an amended ruling, considering Lolita's refusal to perform her duties and her abandonment as indicators of serious psychological incapacity.

The Petition

The OSG contended that Dr. Flores' psychological evaluation did not substantiate the claim of psychological illness and failed to establish its juridical antecedence, severity, and irreparability. They argued that infidelity and abandonment did not constitute psychological incapacity but were grounds for legal separation.

The Case for the Respondent

Cesar argued that Lolita’s actions constituted severe and incurable psychological incapacity, thereby providing sufficient grounds for nullifying their marriage.

The Issue

The central issue presented before the court was whether there existed valid grounds for annulling the marriage on psychological incapacity.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, concluding that there was no sufficient basis to annul Cesar's marriage to Lolita on the grounds of psychological incapacity.

Applicable Law and Jurisprudence on Psychological Incapacity

The ruling was guided by Article 36 of the Family Code, which states that a marriage is void if one party is psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of celebration. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity implies a profound incapacity to understand and fulfill basic marital duties and cannot be equated merely to refusal, neglect, or difficulty.

Failure to Prove Psychological Incapacity

The Court found that Cesar had failed to substa

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.