Case Summary (G.R. No. 246868)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
Angelique Pearl filed a verified petition below seeking declaration that her marriage to Mark was void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Mark failed to answer the petition. The trial court granted the petition. The Republic, through the OSG, moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of nullity. The Republic thereafter filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which resulted in the decision under review.
Factual Background — Relationship History
The parties were former schoolmates who entered a long-term boyfriend–girlfriend relationship characterized by recurring breakups and reconciliations (approximately twenty times over five years). The relationship involved marked jealousy, mutual hostility, repeated quarrels, some incidents of physical violence, and Mark’s reported unfaithfulness. The parties married after an unexpected pregnancy; Angelique was about twenty and Mark about twenty-one at the time of marriage.
Key Incidents and Post‑Wedding Conduct
Post‑nuptially, the marriage deteriorated. Angelique recounted difficulties living with Mark’s family and discovering misrepresentations by Mark concerning his studies and his family’s socio‑economic status. Mark was described as unemployed, extravagant, given to vices, physically and verbally abusive, and prone to abandoning the home and child. Angelique likewise exhibited behaviors including suicidal threats and at least one episode of physical violence that resulted in injury to Mark; an especially serious incident recounted by witnesses involved Mark suffering a broken jaw when he struck Angelique.
Witness and Expert Evidence
- Witness testimony: Angelique testified extensively about the relationship’s history, her experiences of abuse, and Mark’s conduct. Her uncle and confidant, Johnson C. Tiu, corroborated many aspects of her account, including longstanding turbulence, philandering by Mark, and incidents of physical violence.
- Expert testimony: Psychiatrist Dr. Jay Madelon Castillo‑Carcereny examined Angelique (and interviewed Angelique’s father) and administered several psychometric and projective tests. She diagnosed Angelique with borderline personality disorder and, based on collateral information provided by Angelique and her father, diagnosed Mark with narcissistic personality disorder. The expert concluded that both parties had personality structures that manifested in early adulthood, were grave in character, and were incurable in the legal sense, and she recommended that the marriage be declared void due to psychological incapacity.
Trial Court Findings
The trial court (Branch 260, Parañaque City) granted the petition for declaration of nullity, finding that the totality of the evidence established that both spouses were psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations. The court accepted the testimony of the petitioner, her corroborating witness, and the expert psychiatric opinion as sufficient to prove the elements of Article 36.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the evidence, taken as a whole, established that both spouses suffered from psychological incapacity characterized by juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability. The appellate court found the psychiatric assessment consistent with the factual milieu and considered the expert’s methods and findings persuasive. The Court of Appeals denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration.
Legal Standard under Article 36 and Jurisprudential Clarifications
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage is void if, at the time of celebration, a party was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations even if that incapacity manifests only after solemnization. The Supreme Court has clarified (notably in Tan‑Andal v. Andal) that psychological incapacity is a legal concept rather than strictly a medical one. The claimant must prove psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence, and the three core legal criteria are: (1) juridical antecedence (existence of the condition prior to marriage), (2) gravity (the condition must be serious, not mere personality quirks or transient mood disturbances), and (3) incurability in the legal sense (structural incompatibility that renders the marriage’s survival impossible). Courts must evaluate the totality of evidence on a case‑by‑case basis.
Application — Juridical Antecedence
The Court found abundant evidence that the problematic personality structures and behavioral patterns of both parties manifested well before marriage. The longstanding “rocky” relationship in high school and college, repeated cycles of reconciliation after violent or manipulative episodes, repeated breakups and reconciliations, and the patterns of jealousy, manipulation, and philandering were all found to demonstrate juridical antecedence.
Application — Gravity of the Condition
The Court concluded that the behaviors and interactions between the spouses transcended mere character faults or episodic disputes. The relationship’s consistent pattern of quarrels, verbal and physical violence, infidelity, neglect, mutual resentment, and inability to accord love, respect and support to one another demonstrated a degree of dysfunction sufficiently grave to satisfy Article 36’s gravity requirement.
Application — Incurability in the Legal Sense
Applying the legal concept of incurability, the Court determined that the incompatibility and entrenched personality structures of both spouses rendered them unable to perform essential marital obligations in a manner that would permit the marriage to survive. The evidence showed a persistent, antagonistic dynamic that would predictably lead to the marriage’s irreparable breakdown, satisfying the legal understanding of incurability.
Admissibility and Weight of Expert Opinion
Although the Court reaffirmed that an expert’s clinical diagnosis is not strictly required to establish psychological incapacity, it evalu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 246868)
The Case
- Petition for review on certiorari by the Republic (Office of the Solicitor General) assails the Court of Appeals dispositions in CA-G.R. CV No. 107744:
- Decision dated January 30, 2018 affirming the trial court’s grant of petition to declare the marriage of Angelique Pearl O. Claur and Mark A. Claur void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity; and
- Resolution dated April 11, 2019 denying the Republic’s motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court decision penned by Justice Lazaro-Javier; G.R. No. 246868; decision date February 15, 2022.
Procedural Antecedents and Posture
- Verified petition filed by Angelique Pearl seeking declaration that her marriage to Mark is void ab initio for psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
- Mark failed to file an answer despite notice.
- Regional Trial Court (Branch 260, Parañaque City) Decision dated November 26, 2015 granted the petition on ground of psychological incapacity of both spouses; motion for reconsideration by the Republic denied by RTC Order dated July 4, 2016.
- On appeal, Court of Appeals affirmed in Decision dated January 30, 2018; OSG’s motion for reconsideration denied April 11, 2019.
- The Republic filed petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court contesting sufficiency and credibility of evidence; petitioner-Appellee (Angelique Pearl) deemed to have waived filing of Appellee’s Brief at one point in appellate proceedings.
Facts as Presented by Petitioner (Angelique Pearl)
- She and Mark were high school schoolmates; she developed a crush on him despite his reputation for being flirtatious and for drinking at a young age.
- She obtained his mobile number through mutual friends and became his girlfriend.
- Relationship characterized by jealousy (Mark was described as “jealous type” and obsessive), philandering (Mark continued texting other girls), deceit (Mark lied about his whereabouts and aspects of his background), and manipulation (Mark used dormmates and family contacts to keep her from ending the relationship).
- The couple began an on-and-off relationship for approximately five years with about twenty (20) breakups and reconciliations.
- She became pregnant unexpectedly at age twenty (20); Mark was twenty-one (21).
- Despite hesitation and her parents’ objections, she married Mark on January 3, 2009 at the Ascension Chapel of Villa Escudero, reportedly after Mark and his parents insisted and promised relocation to the United States.
- Post-wedding, they stayed with Mark’s family; petitioner had difficulty with household chores and alleged that Mark’s parents borrowed money from her for Mark’s tuition.
- She discovered lies told by Mark: he allegedly misrepresented his proximity to college graduation and his father’s occupation (Mark’s father actually a security guard).
- Domestic life deteriorated: frequent quarrels, physical violence (one incident where Mark sustained a head laceration after petitioner hit him with her “happy feet” clogs; another where Mark hit petitioner in the face, resulting in a broken jaw), separations, Mark’s abandonment of family duties, and reliance by Mark on petitioner for financial support.
- They moved in with petitioner’s parents; Mark allegedly acted irresponsibly, lazy, extravagant, and given to vices; when petitioner insisted on separation (circa September 2011), Mark allegedly retaliated by falsely telling her parents she had a male text mate.
- Final separation in January 2012 when Mark returned home late and drunk; petitioner had their helper pack his belongings and they separated in fact since then.
- Birth of their son Malique Antonio on April 4, 2009.
Testimony of Johnson C. Tiu (Uncle and Confidant)
- Johnson (Apol’s uncle) testified he was close to Angelique Pearl and called her “Apol.”
- He first learned of Mark from Apol and met Mark at Apol’s dorm; Mark was silent when introduced as boyfriend.
- Johnson recounted Apol’s repeated confidences regarding their “rocky” relationship, including jealousy and Mark’s philandering; he advised her to end it but she became pregnant.
- Johnson and Apol’s parents initially opposed the marriage but later accepted her choice to marry.
- Johnson corroborated Apol’s accounts post-marriage: discovery of Mark’s lies, Mark’s lack of responsibility, continuing philandering, and escalation to physical assault culminating in petitioner’s broken jaw.
- Johnson described Apol as jealous and a “nagger” and confirmed violent incidents and abuses.
Expert Evidence — Dr. Jay Madelon Castillo-Carcereny (Psychiatrist)
- Dr. Castillo-Carcereny conducted a personal examination of Angelique Pearl and interviewed Angelique Pearl’s father Antonio; she did not personally examine Mark.
- She performed and relied on multiple psychological tests and clinical interviews; tests administered included:
- Culture Fair Test
- Basic Personality Inventory
- House-Tree-Person
- Draw-A-Person Test
- Bender Gestalt Visual Motor Test
- Luscher Full Color Test
- Zung Depression Scale
- Findings as reported in the record:
- Angelique Pearl diagnosed with borderline personality disorder; manifested by:
- frantic efforts to avoid abandonment (e.g., pre-marital sex and pregnancy to keep relationship);
- pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships (idealization and devaluation of partner);
- impulsivity in at least two self-damaging areas (excessive spending, use of money as affection);
- recurrent suicidal behavior/gestures (drank insecticide, self-harm in response to rejection);
- affective instability (mood swings, temper tantrums, tendencies for assault);
- chronic feelings of emptiness;
- inappropriate intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (breaking things, making scenes).
- Mark diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (based on collateral information from Angelique Pearl and Antonio); manifestations include:
- grandiose sense of self-importance (fabricated stories about family wealth);
- preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success (took review classes but did not take board exams);
- requirement of excessive admiration (simultaneous relationships and flirtations before/during marriage);
- sense of entitlement/unreasonable expectations (refused to find employment and relied on petitioner financially);
- interpersonal exploitation (used petiti
- Angelique Pearl diagnosed with borderline personality disorder; manifested by: