Case Summary (G.R. No. 247798)
Petitioner
Constancia sought a declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Justiniano under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of the respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity to perform essential marital obligations.
Respondent and State Participation
Justiniano failed to answer the Petition and did not participate in the proceedings. The State, through the OSG, entered its appearance and opposed the petition; the City Prosecutor investigated and reported no collusion between the parties as required by law.
Key Dates
Marriage: December 23, 1989; Child’s birth: April 1, 1990; Petition filed: September 9, 2013; Summons served: December 19, 2013; RTC Decision declaring nullity: June 19, 2017; RTC denial of reconsideration: January 3, 2018; CA Decision reversing RTC: November 29, 2018; CA denial of reconsideration: May 8, 2019; Supreme Court Decision reinstating RTC: January 18, 2023.
Applicable Law and Jurisprudential Authorities
Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided in 2023). Governing statutes and rules: Article 36 (psychological incapacity) and Article 68 (marital obligations) of the Family Code; Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari). Controlling jurisprudence cited and applied includes Te v. Yu‑Te, Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, Marcos v. Marcos, Azcueta, Antonio v. Reyes, and Tan‑Andal v. Andal (which set the clear and convincing evidence standard for Article 36 cases).
Facts (summary of salient events)
After meeting post‑widowhood in 1987, Constancia and Justiniano developed a relationship and married in December 1989. Throughout the marriage Justiniano was unemployed, lived largely with his family, associated with relatives who gambled and drank, and allegedly spent time drinking and gambling to the detriment of family support. Constancia primarily supported the family, worked abroad in 1992, and later returned to work locally; episodes of verbal and physical abuse, public humiliation (including the throwing out of Constancia’s belongings), and intermittent physical harm to the child were alleged. After a culminant incident of public maltreatment, Constancia left but regained custody of the child a year later.
Procedural History
Constancia filed for declaration of nullity under Article 36 in 2013. The RTC, after hearing testimony including that of the psychiatrist Dr. Pagaddu and lay witnesses, found Justiniano psychologically incapacitated and granted the petition in June 2017. The OSG filed a timely appeal; the CA reversed in November 2018 and denied reconsideration in May 2019. The Supreme Court then entertained a Petition for Review under Rule 45.
Central Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s declaration of nullity by finding that the evidence did not establish Justiniano’s psychological incapacity to the requisite legal standard.
Standard of Proof Applied
The Supreme Court applied the legal standard articulated in Tan‑Andal v. Andal: the petitioner in an Article 36 nullity action must prove the psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence — a quantum greater than preponderance but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court therefore re‑examined the factual record against this heightened evidentiary threshold.
Expert Testimony and Methodology
The CA criticized the RTC’s reliance on the psychiatric report because Dr. Pagaddu did not personally examine the respondent. The Supreme Court emphasized that personal examination is not an absolute requirement; a psychiatric diagnosis may be supported by credible collateral testimony and other independent evidence. In this case Dr. Pagaddu interviewed the petitioner and two of the respondent’s collateral relatives (his sister and sister‑in‑law), gathered developmental and behavioral history, traced a pattern of dependency and maladaptive personality features originating in childhood, and related these findings to manifestations before and during the marriage. The Court found the expert’s methodology and the scope of her inquiries sufficiently probative and not fatally defective.
Corroborative Witness Evidence
Independent lay testimony by close associates (Venilyn Domingo Gaspar and Lutgarda M. Consolacion) corroborated the expert’s findings and the petitioner’s allegations: observations of the respondent’s habitual idleness and drinking, verbal denigration of the petitioner, sale of household items to fund vices, public humiliation (throwing out the petitioner’s belongings), and the petitioner’s economic burden in supporting the family and child. The Court treated these lay accounts as consistent with and reinforcing the psychiatric evaluation.
Antecedence, Gravity, and Incurability
The Court analyzed the classic threefold requisites for Article 36: juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability. Based on Dr. Pagaddu’s tracing of the respondent’s upbringing (spoiling, dependence, failure to experience frustration), the respondent’s long‑standing behavioral pattern prior to the marriage (as recounted by family members and witnesses), and the chronic, pervasive nature of the respondent’s behavior (incapacity to hold employment, persistent dependence, domination by vices and inability to assume marital roles), the Court found that the psychological condition displayed antecedence, manifested with sufficient gravity in the marital context, and was incurable insofar as there was no reasonable prospect of therapy or intervention restoring marital function.
Evaluation of Court of Appeals’ Reasoning
The CA characterized Justiniano’s conduct as immaturity or irresponsibility and concluded that habitual drunkenness, gambling, and refusal to work do not necessarily establish Article 36 incapacity. The Supreme Court rejected that narrow reading, noting (i) the CA unduly minimized the respondent’s sustained failure to perform essential marital duties and (ii) such conduct, when shown to be a persistent product of a chronic psychological disorder rooted in antecedent personality formation, can constitute psychological incapacity. The Court also criticized the CA’s focus on absence of direct physical‑abuse proof while overlooking the pervasive failure of marital obligations and corroborated expert findings.
Role of State Participation and Effect of Respondent’s Silence
The Court noted the State’s participation through the OSG and the City Prosecutor, including the prosecutorial finding of no collusion. The respondent’s failure to answer or participate was treated as significant: absent challenge or rebuttal, collater
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 247798)
Case Caption and Basic Information
- Case: Constancia Javate-Asejo, Petitioner, vs. Justiniano Zantua Asejo and Republic of the Philippines, Respondents.
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines, Third Division.
- G.R. No.: 247798.
- Decision date: January 18, 2023.
- Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, attacking the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 29, 2018 and Resolution dated May 8, 2019 in CAA‑G.R. CV No. 110708.
- Members of the Division: Ponente Justice Singh; concurring Justices Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao.
- Lower courts and orders involved: Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Santiago City — Decision dated June 19, 2017 (granting declaration of nullity of marriage); Court of Appeals (CA) — Decision dated November 29, 2018 (reversing RTC) and Resolution dated May 8, 2019 (denying reconsideration).
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petitioner Constancia sought declaration of absolute nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of respondent's psychological incapacity.
- RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio in Decision dated June 19, 2017.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC; RTC denied it in an Order dated January 3, 2018.
- The OSG appealed to the CA; the CA reversed the RTC in its Decision dated November 29, 2018 and denied Constancia’s Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated May 8, 2019.
- Constancia filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to reverse the CA decision and reinstate the RTC declaration of nullity.
Core Issue Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s declaration that the marriage between Constancia and Justiniano was null and void on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity.
- Subsidiary, factual question: whether Constancia sufficiently established, by the evidence presented (including expert testimony), that Justiniano suffers from psychological incapacity characterized by the elements required in jurisprudence.
Factual Background (as alleged and established in the record)
- Relationship origin:
- Constancia met Justiniano after she was widowed in 1987; Justiniano assisted her in processing pension benefits and they developed a mutual understanding.
- Prior to marriage, Constancia observed that Justiniano lived in a "rowdy compound" where many relatives engaged in gambling, betting and drinking; he lived with family, was unemployed, and associated with friends known as drug users and drunkards; he completed studies but was never employed.
- Marriage and living arrangements:
- Constancia and Justiniano married on December 23, 1989 at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Solana‑Enrile, Solana, Cagayan.
- Thereafter the couple resided with Justiniano’s family because he insisted and was financially dependent on his parents and siblings.
- Attempts to live independently failed; they returned to the family compound after about a month; they moved intermittently between the families of the spouses.
- Financial support, child, and work:
- Their only child, Clifford, was born April 1, 1990; expenses for childbirth and subsequent needs were shouldered by Constancia’s parents and Justiniano’s parents at various times.
- Constancia worked abroad as a domestic helper in Hong Kong in 1992 to support her son and sent allowances through her parents; she returned in 1993 to work locally to care for their son.
- Throughout their married life, Constancia was the primary or sole earner supporting the family.
- Conduct, abuse, and final separation:
- Allegations of Justiniano’s habitual drunkenness, gambling, selling household items for vice, compulsion of Constancia to entertain his drinking companions, verbal abuse using phrases such as "second hand," "reject," "malas," and "basura ka," and episodes of physical and psychological maltreatment.
- Incidents included a public scandalizing episode in which Justiniano, while drunk, threw out her personal belongings; Constancia was left "mentally shocked and physically traumatized" and thereafter left Justiniano, initially leaving the child in his custody for study reasons and taking custody a year later.
- Procedural facts:
- Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity filed September 9, 2013; summons personally received by Justiniano on December 19, 2013, but he did not file an Answer.
- OSG entered its appearance October 22, 2013 and authorized the City Prosecutor of Santiago City to appear; the Acting City Prosecutor filed a Manifestation on May 20, 2014 that there was no collusion.
RTC Ruling and Rationale
- RTC Decision dated June 19, 2017:
- Found that Constancia established Justiniano’s psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage by a preponderance of evidence.
- Relied in material part on testimony of expert witness Dr. Ethel Maureen Biscarro Pagaddu and corroborating lay witness testimony.
- Dispositive relief: declared the marriage solemnized December 23, 1989 as null and void ab initio; directed registration of entry of judgment to relevant Local Civil Registrars and compliance reporting.
- RTC’s assessment:
- Considered as "glaring failure" Justiniano’s persistent non‑performance of marital and parental obligations (living together, mutual love, respect, support).
- Denied the OSG’s Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated January 3, 2018 reaffirming the Decision.
Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution
- CA Decision (Nov. 29, 2018):
- Granted the OSG’s appeal and reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and Order; held that the marriage remains valid and subsisting.
- Reasoning emphasized insufficiency of evidence to establish psychological incapacity under Article 36: the CA characterized the spouses as merely unwilling to work out personality differences, overwhelmed by disappointment or disillusionment.
- The CA found Justiniano’s immaturity and irresponsibility did not amount to psychological incapacity.
- CA criticized the RTC’s heavy reliance on Dr. Pagaddu’s report, noting perceived methodological shortcomings and lack of personal interview with Justiniano; relied on Rumbaua v. Rumbaua to insist on rigorous standards for psychological reports when based largely on one‑sided accounts.
- CA Resolution (May 8, 2019):
- Denied Constancia’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit and reiterated the view that evidence was insufficient to establish psychological incapacity.
Expert Testimony: Dr. Ethel Maureen Biscarro Pagaddu
- Form and sources of evaluation:
- Conducted psychiatric evaluation based primarily on interviews with petitioner Constancia and collateral relatives of respondent: Justiniano’s sister (Venus Asejo Bautista) and sister‑in‑law (Ellen Asejo).
- The CA criticized that Dr. Pagaddu did not personally interview Justiniano; the OSG noted that the interviews of Justiniano’s relatives lasted less than five hours in total and questioned depth.
- Substance of Dr. Pagaddu’s findings (as presented and relied upon by RTC and Supreme Court):
- Traced Justiniano’s formative background: youngest of eight children; parents, particularly mother, spoiled him; grew up in an average but spendthrift household; developed excessive parental dependence and was shielded from frustration.
- Described a dysfunctional family environment that fostered dependence, an inabi