Candelario vs. Candelario

Article 36 of the Family Code, providing for the nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, has retroactive effect and applies to marriages celebrated before the Code's effectivity on August 3, 1988, provided no vested or acquired rights are prejudiced. However, the alleged psychological incapacity must still be proven by clear and convincing evidence to be grave, juridically antecedent, and incurable, as interpreted under prevailing jurisprudence.

Petitioner Arthur A. Candelario and respondent Marlene E. Candelario were married in a civil ceremony on June 11, 1984. Marlene worked abroad as a domestic helper starting in 1987. During her absence, Arthur engaged in an extramarital affair and cohabited with another woman in the conjugal dwelling. Upon discovering this in 1989, Marlene separated from Arthur. More than twenty years later, in 2013, Arthur filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, alleging his own psychological incapacity (Dependent Personality Disorder) to comply with essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioner Arthur filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging his own psychological incapacity.
• Marriage and Separation: The parties were married on June 11, 1984. In 1987, Marlene worked abroad. Arthur subsequently engaged in an affair and cohabited with another woman. Upon her return in 1989, Marlene discovered the affair and permanently separated from Arthur.
• RTC Proceedings: Marlene did not file an answer. The RTC ordered a collusion investigation, which found none. Arthur presented his testimony and a Psychiatric Report from Dr. Daisy L. Chua-Daquilanea, who diagnosed him with Dependent Personality Disorder. The State opted not to present evidence.
• RTC Ruling: The RTC found Arthur's psychological incapacity to be proven but denied the petition solely on the ground that the Family Code (enacted August 3, 1988) could not retroactively apply to a marriage celebrated in 1984.
• Supreme Court Review: The sole issue raised was the retroactive application of Article 36. The Supreme Court disagreed with the RTC's conclusion on retroactivity but, applying the standards from Tan-Andal v. Andal, found Arthur's evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity.

• Retroactivity of Article 36: Petitioner argued that Article 36, in conjunction with Article 256 of the Family Code, should be applied retroactively to his 1984 marriage. He cited numerous Supreme Court decisions where Article 36 was applied to marriages celebrated before the Family Code's effectivity.
• No Prejudice to Vested Rights: Petitioner maintained that no vested or acquired rights of Marlene would be prejudiced by the retroactive application, as the spouses had not acquired significant properties during the marriage.

• Office of the Solicitor General (OSG): The OSG agreed with the petitioner on the retroactivity issue. It argued that the RTC's ruling created an irrational distinction based solely on the date of marriage, which is irrelevant to the existence of psychological incapacity.
• Respondent Marlene E. Candelario: Marlene did not file any comment or argument before the Supreme Court.

• Retroactivity: Whether Article 36 of the Family Code can be applied retroactively to a marriage celebrated before the Code's effectivity on August 3, 1988.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence to prove his psychological incapacity under the standards set by prevailing jurisprudence.

• Retroactivity: The Family Code, including Article 36, has retroactive effect pursuant to Article 256, provided it does not prejudice vested or acquired rights. The amendment to Article 39, deleting the prescriptive period for actions based on Article 36, confirms its retroactive application without distinction as to the date of marriage. The RTC erred in holding otherwise.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The petition was denied because the evidence failed to meet the required standard. Applying Tan-Andal v. Andal, psychological incapacity is not strictly a mental disorder requiring expert proof but must be shown through clear and convincing evidence of a durable personality structure causing an inability to understand and comply with essential marital obligations. The Psychiatric Report was insufficient as it did not adequately establish the gravity (the incapacity was not shown to be more than mere refusal or neglect), incurability (the conclusion was a bare assertion without sufficient basis), and juridical antecedence (no proof the condition existed prior to marriage) of the alleged incapacity.

• Retroactive Application of the Family Code — Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. This principle applies to Article 36, making psychological incapacity a ground for nullity available to marriages celebrated before August 3, 1988.
• Psychological Incapacity under Tan-Andal v. Andal — Psychological incapacity under Article 36 is not a mental incapacity that must be proven exclusively through expert opinion. It is a legal concept that refers to a durable or enduring aspect of a person's personality structure, making it impossible for him or her to understand and comply with essential marital obligations. Proof may come from ordinary witnesses, but must be clear and convincing and establish the requisites of gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence.

• "The Family Code, including its concept of psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify marriage, shall be given retroactive effect, to the extent that no vested or acquired rights under relevant laws will be prejudiced or impaired."
• "Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personal disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. Nevertheless, proof must still be provided to show the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called 'personality structure,' which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family."
• "It must be stressed that an unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage."

• Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021 — Abandoned the strict requirement of expert proof for psychological incapacity and redefined it as a legal concept based on a durable personality structure causing an inability to comply with essential marital obligations.
• Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21 (1995) — Cited for the deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee regarding the retroactive application of Article 36.
• Republic v. Molina, 327 Phil. 654 (1996) — Referenced for the guidelines in interpreting Article 36, though the application of those guidelines has been modified by Tan-Andal.
• Numerous other cases (e.g., Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, Valdes v. RTC, Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes) were cited by petitioner to demonstrate the Court's consistent retroactive application of Article 36.

• 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 be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
• Article 256, Family Code — This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.
• Article 39, Family Code (as amended) — The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe.

• Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson)
• Zalameda, J.
• Marquez, J.
• Rosario, J. (on leave)

N/A — The decision was unanimous among the participating justices.