A.C. No. 6538 - Asturias vs. Serrano

Petitioner Gerardo A. Eliscupidez and respondent Glenda C. Eliscupidez were married on November 20, 1990 after an “on-and-off” relationship that began when they met in 1986.
The couple had two children and maintained a tumultuous marriage characterized by frequent conflicts and allegations of misconduct by the respondent.

On March 13, 2012, the petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code in the RTC of Taguig City, alleging that the respondent suffered from psychological incapacity.
Due to the respondent’s unavailability at her last known address, service of summons was allowed by publication. An investigation was then conducted to rule out any collusion between the parties.

Petitioner testified about various incidents during the marriage, including physical altercations, emotional abuse, restrictions imposed by the respondent on his interactions, and the respondent’s extramarital affairs.
Witness testimony was provided by Irene V. Oro, the couple’s former household helper, who corroborated petitioner’s claims of the respondent’s aggressive behavior and instability.
The petitioner further submitted a Psychological Evaluation Report by clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, which diagnosed the respondent with features of histrionic personality disorder with antisocial personality traits. Dr. Tayag’s findings were based on interviews with the petitioner, Oro, and respondent’s sister, Viernes.

The RTC rendered a Decision on November 5, 2013, declaring the marriage void ab initio on the ground of the respondent’s psychological incapacity, and ordering the cancellation of the marriage record.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied. Subsequently, the OSG appealed the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The CA examined the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, particularly focusing on the methodology and foundation of Dr. Tayag’s report.
The CA found that the alleged psychological traits were based on self-serving accounts and that the methodology lacked the required comprehensiveness to establish that the respondent’s condition was grave, deeply rooted, and incurable.
Consequently, the CA reversed the RTC’s nullity decision, dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity and ruling that the marriage remained valid and subsisting.

Petitioner sought a review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the CA’s reversal on the grounds that the RTC’s findings should be final and binding.
The petitioner contended that expert evidence, alongside independent testimonial accounts, had established the respondent’s psychological incapacity according to doctrinal guidelines.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error of law in reversing the RTC’s decision declaring the marriage null ab initio.

The central issue was whether the petitioner’s evidence sufficiently established the respondent’s psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 of the Family Code.
The issue also involved the evaluation of the methodology and credibility of Dr. Tayag’s Psychological Evaluation Report.

Whether the totality of the evidence, including witness testimonies and expert evaluation, met the stringent requirements—namely, gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability—mandated by established jurisprudence on psychological incapacity.

The extent to which expert evidence based on one-sided and possibly biased sources (i.e., the petitioner’s testimony and those of his witnesses) can satisfy the burden of proving psychological incapacity.