G.R. No. 247798 - Javate-Asejo vs. Asejo

Constancia Javate-Asejo, the petitioner, and Justiniano Zantua-Asejo, the respondent, entered into a marital relationship following the death of Constancia’s previous husband.
Constancia met Justiniano after she was widowed in 1987; their relationship deepened into a “mutual understanding” resulting in pregnancy and subsequent marriage on December 23, 1989.
The marriage took place at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Solana-Enrile, Solana, Cagayan, and the couple initially resided with Justiniano’s family due to his unemployment and family dependence.

He resided in a compound known for gambling, drinking, and unsound lifestyles;
He was unemployed, financially dependent on his family, and associated with friends involved in vices such as drug use and excessive drinking;
He had completed his studies but had never secured employment.

Following their union, the couple experienced immediate difficulties including conflicts over living arrangements, Justiniano’s refusal to work, excessive indulgence in vices, and financial irresponsibility.

Throughout the marriage, Constancia was the sole breadwinner supporting their only child, Clifford Javate-Asejo, born on April 1, 1990.
Persistent issues emerged such as:

Justiniano’s habitual drunkenness, gambling, and neglect of marital obligations;
Verbal, psychological, and occasional physical abuse, including being subjected to demeaning remarks like “second hand,” “reject,” “malas,” and “basura ka” during quarrels;
Instances where Justiniano publicly humiliated Constancia by disposing of her personal belongings and compelling her to serve his friends.

The couple experienced several shifts in residence—alternating between living with Constancia’s family, Justiniano’s relatives, and attempts at independent living—which consistently exacerbated the marital strife.

Constancia filed a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage on September 9, 2013, under Article 36 of the Family Code, claiming psychological incapacity on the part of Justiniano.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 21, Santiago City, ruled in favor of Constancia on June 19, 2017, declaring the marriage null and void based on Justiniano’s psychological incapacity.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, filed a Motion for Reconsideration (denied by the RTC) and subsequently appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision dated November 29, 2018, the CA reversed the RTC ruling by holding that the marriage remained valid and subsisting, further denying Constancia’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 8, 2019.

The RTC based its findings largely on the expert testimony and Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Dr. Ethel Maureen Biscarro Pagaddu, who:

Conducted interviews with Constancia, Justiniano’s sister, and his sister-in-law;
Diagnosed Justiniano with a pathological personality disorder marked by traits such as impulsivity, irresponsibility, and an ingrained inability to perform essential marital obligations.

Other witnesses, including a close friend (Venilyn Domingo Gaspar) and a neighbor (Lutgarda M. Consolacion), provided corroborative testimonies regarding Justiniano’s abusive behavior and financial irresponsibility.

Constancia argued that the totality of evidence, including the psychological report, clearly established that Justiniano’s persistent vices and failure to perform marital duties amounted to psychological incapacity.
The OSG contended that the methodology of the expert’s evaluation was deficient since it solely relied on third-party interviews and did not include a personal examination of Justiniano.
The CA’s decision focused on recharacterizing the issues as relational or personality differences rather than establishing a legal standard of psychological incapacity.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s declaration of nullity by ruling that the marriage between Constancia and Justiniano remained valid and subsisting.

Did Constancia present adequate evidence, particularly through the expert testimony of Dr. Pagaddu, to establish Justiniano’s psychological incapacity?
Is the evidence presented sufficient to meet the required threshold—whether preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing proof—for declaring the marriage null and void under Article 36?

Whether the failure to directly examine Justiniano by the expert witness undermines the credibility of the psychological evaluation and its findings on his incapacity.

Whether the emphasis on mere “personality differences” by the CA neglects the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability characteristic of psychological incapacity as required by law.