G.R. No. 222068 - Candelario vs. Candelario

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222068)

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutory provisions: Family Code, Articles 36 (psychological incapacity), 39 (imprescriptibility of action for absolute nullity), and 256 (retroactive effect of the Code insofar as no vested or acquired rights are prejudiced). Rules of Court: Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari). Constitutional basis: 1987 Constitution (decision date 2023, thus the 1987 Constitution governs).

Key Dates

Marriage celebrated: June 11, 1984. Child born: May 14, 1985. Marlene’s departure to work abroad: October 1987. Marlene’s return and separation: October 1989. Petition for nullity filed in RTC: January 18, 2013. RTC judgment denying petition: March 6, 2015. RTC order denying reconsideration: December 7, 2015. Supreme Court decision: July 25, 2023.

Material Facts

Arthur and Marlene married in 1984 and had one child. Marlene worked abroad (Singapore) beginning October 1987 and sent remittances; Arthur remained in the Philippines, frequented nightclubs, and entered into an extramarital relationship, later cohabiting with his partner and fathering four children. Marlene returned in 1989, discovered cohabitation, and separated from Arthur; she took custody of the child. Over twenty years later, Arthur filed a petition to declare the marriage void ab initio for his alleged psychological incapacity.

Procedural History

Marlene was served but did not file an answer and was absent at pre-trial; the prosecutor’s investigation found no collusion. Arthur testified at trial and submitted, by judicial affidavit, the psychiatric report of Dr. Daisy L. Chua‑Daquilanea, who diagnosed Dependent Personality Disorder and recommended nullity. Marlene and the State did not present evidence at trial. The RTC admitted Arthur’s evidence but denied the petition on the ground that Article 36 of the Family Code could not be applied retroactively to marriages celebrated before the Code’s effectivity (August 3, 1988). Arthur’s motion for reconsideration at the RTC was denied. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition procedurally but later reinstated it for consideration on the merits; the OSG was impleaded and filed comments supporting retroactivity of Article 36.

RTC Ruling and Its Basis

Although the RTC found Arthur to suffer from a dependent personality disorder and characterized that incapacity as grave, juridically antecedent, and incurable, it denied the petition because it concluded the Family Code (and Article 36) was not yet in force when the parties married in 1984. The court therefore applied the Civil Code as the governing law at the time of celebration and held that Article 36 could not be invoked retroactively to void that marriage.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity as ground for absolute nullity) is retroactively applicable to marriages solemnized before the Family Code’s effectivity, specifically the 1984 marriage of Arthur and Marlene.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Retroactivity

The Supreme Court held that the Family Code, including Article 36, may be given retroactive effect insofar as such retroactivity does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights, consistent with Article 256 of the Family Code. The Court noted that Article 39, as amended, declares the action for absolute nullity imprescriptible and that nothing in the Family Code expressly bars retroactive application of Article 36 to pre‑Code marriages. The Court relied on the legislative and Committee deliberations showing the Family Code revision committee considered retroactivity and that prior Supreme Court rulings have applied Article 36 to marriages solemnized before August 3, 1988. The Court therefore concluded that the RTC erred in denying nullity solely because the marriage predated the Family Code.

Standards for Proving Psychological Incapacity (Jurisprudential Development)

The Supreme Court applied its post‑Tan‑Andal jurisprudence: psychological incapacity is not synonymous with a mental disorder proven only through expert testimony. Instead, the plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence and considering the totality of the evidence, that the spouse’s enduring personality structure (1) manifests a grave incapacity, (2) is juridically antecedent (existed at the time of marriage), and (3) is incurable in the legal sense such that the marriage’s continuation would inevitably break down. Evidence may include expert psychiatric testimony but may also be established through non‑expert witnesses who observed consistent dysfunctional behavior; the Court emphasized the need to distinguish constitutional and statutory protection of marriage from ordinary marital failings.

Application of Standards to the Evidence in This Case

Although the RTC had credited Dr. Chua‑Daquilanea’s diagnosis of Dependent Personality Disorder and had found grave, antecedent, and incurable incapacity, the Supreme Court re‑examined those findings under Tan‑Andal and related authorities. The Court found the psychiatric report deficient: it lacked detailed demonstration of Arthur’s personalit

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 222068)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 222068, July 25, 2023) seeks to set aside the March 6, 2015 Judgment and the December 7, 2015 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Antique, Branch 11, in Civil Case No. 2013-01-3848, which denied petitioner Arthur A. Candelario’s Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
The lone assignment of error presented to the Supreme Court: the trial court erred in finding that Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity) has no retroactive effect to marriages contracted before the Family Code’s effectivity.
February 10, 2016 Resolution: Supreme Court impleaded the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
March 14, 2016 Resolution: Supreme Court initially denied the petition for failure to sufficiently show reversible error and for noncompliance with Rule 45 and related procedural provisions.
Arthur filed Motion for Reconsideration of the March 14, 2016 Resolution. July 25, 2016 Resolution required respondents to file comments on that motion.
OSG filed Comment (October 20, 2017), adopting an argument that the RTC erred in denying retroactive application of Article 36.
June 27, 2018 Resolution: Court dispensed with filing of Marlene’s Comment due to returned unserved copies.
March 20, 2019 Resolution: Supreme Court granted Arthur’s Motion for Reconsideration and set aside the March 14, 2016 Resolution; parties were required to file Comments to the Petition; OSG filed Manifestation adopting its October 20, 2017 Comment; Marlene again failed to file.
Supreme Court proceeded to the merits and, in the challenged Decision (July 25, 2023), denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s March 6, 2015 Judgment and December 7, 2015 Order; marriage declared valid and subsisting.

Factual Background

Arthur A. Candelario and Marlene E. Candelario were married in a civil ceremony on June 11, 1984.
The marriage produced one child, born May 14, 1985.
Marlene left for Singapore to work as a domestic helper around October 1987, sending earnings to her family; she left the child under Arthur’s care while Arthur worked as a farmer.
During Marlene’s absence, Arthur frequently visited nightclubs and met a woman who became his partner; Marlene later learned of the affair.
Marlene returned to the Philippines in October 1989 (without Arthur’s knowledge) and discovered Arthur cohabiting with his new partner in the conjugal dwelling; Marlene separated from Arthur the same year.
Marlene took custody of the child; the child was raised and cared for by Marlene’s sister and parents. Arthur continued to live with his partner and they had four children together.
More than twenty years after separation, Arthur filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage alleging psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations.

Pre-trial and Trial Proceedings at RTC

Marlene was served with summons but did not file a written answer.
The RTC ordered the provincial prosecutor to investigate collusion; the prosecutor’s report found no collusion between the parties.
At pre-trial, Marlene was absent; the RTC declared pre-trial terminated and set the case for trial on the merits.
During trial, Arthur testified on his own behalf.
The State and respondent Marlene opted not to present evidence; after Arthur rested, the case was submitted for resolution.

Evidence Presented by Petitioner

Testimony of petitioner Arthur A. Candelario.
Judicial affidavit and Psychiatric Report of Dr. Daisy L. Chua-Daquilanea, a psychiatry practitioner of 20 years, which the psychiatrist identified and which the trial court admitted.
Dr. Chua-Daquilanea’s psychiatric evaluation was based on:
- Series of psychiatric interviews and mental status examinations;
- Neurologic and physical examinations of the parties;
- Collateral data from: Faustina Mendoza (owner of the land where Arthur worked), Cerina Bardina (neighbor), and Rizalyn Basilio (Marlene’s sister).
Dr. Chua-Daquilanea’s assessment concluded that Arthur was afflicted with Dependent Personality Disorder and described an “extreme pattern of dependency” attributable to low self-esteem and fear of abandonment originating from an overprotective parental figure.
Psychiatric Report’s notable findings and conclusions (quoted/paraphrased from the report in the record):
- Diagnosis: DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER.
- Condition existed prior to marriage and became more prominent during the marriage.
- Condition was serious; manifested full-blown signs and symptoms of extreme dependency causing incapacity to perform marital obligations (love, care, respect, support, fidelity).
- Not likely to respond to treatment; behavior acceptable to petitioner and not likely to be modified.
- Respondent Marlene was not found to have any disorder and coped rationally and effectively.
- Recommendation: petition for nullity highly recommended based on presence of severe and irreversible personality disorder on the part of petitioner.
The Psychiatric Report also stated that petitioner “had no regrets in this marriage and exerted no effort to save it” and described Arthur’s attachment issues and difficulties assuming responsibilities during Marlene’s absence, which resulted in an extramarital relationship.

RTC’s Decision and Rationale

March 6, 2015 Judgment: RTC denied Arthur’s Petition for lack of merit and dismissed the case.
The RTC gave credence to Dr. Chua-Daquilanea’s psychiatric evaluation and found that Arthur’s psychological incapacity was characterized by severity (gravity), juridical antecedence, and incurability—preponderantly established.
Despite finding psychological incapacity, the RTC ruled that Article 36 of the Family Code could not be applied to nullify Arthur and Marlene’s marriage because:
- The Family Code only took effect on August 3, 1988.
- Arthur and Marlene were married on June 11, 1984, before the Family Code’s effectivity.
- The Civil Code was the law in force at the time of their marriage and did not contain a provision similar to Article 36.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in its December 7, 2015 Order.

Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court

Sole issue: whether Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity as ground for nullity) can be retroactively applied to marriages solemnized before the Family Code’s effectivity on August 3, 1988, specifically to the marriage of Arthur and Marlene solemnized June 11, 1984.

Statutory Provisions Quoted and Considered

Article 36, Family Code: “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
Article 39, Family Code (as amended by Executive Order 227 and R