Cecilia Zulueta vs.

CA and Alfredo Martin

G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20, 1996
Mendoza, J.:

Doctrine:
Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The
constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence
[to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if
there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise,
as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."

Facts:
Cecilia is the wife of Alfredo, herein private respondent. It was said that Cecilia barged
into the clinic of her husband and forcibly opened the drawers therein and took 157
documents which she alleged were consisting of the private correspondence of her
husband and his paramours. She allegedly took the documents to offer the same as
evidence in the legal separation case and disqualification case she filed against her
husband. Alfredo filed a case before the RTC for recovery of said documents. The lower
court granted the same and enjoined Cecilia from using the documents as evidence in
the aforementioned cases.

Issue:
Whether the documents were admissible as evidence.

Held:
No.

Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The
constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence
[to be] inviolable"  is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if
there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise,
as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." 

The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in
breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not
shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by
making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither
may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for
specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a
compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing
to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other.