REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FAMILY COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 15
TAGUIG CITY
2nd Floor, Hall of Justice Building Extension, Gen. Santos Ave., Upper Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila
Mobile Phone No. (+63) 9060137435 | e-mail: fc1tgg0015@judiciary.gov.ph

JOSE AUSTERO,
Petitioner,

-versus- JDRC No. 584

For: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage

ELEN JOYCE MARIE

MAGHANOY-AUSTERO,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

Before this Court is a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage1 filed on 23 October 2019 by JOSE AUSTERO (“Petitioner”)
against ELEN JOYCE MARIE MAGHANOY-AUSTERO
(“Respondent”), praying that the judgement be rendered declaring
the marriage between him and the Respondent be declared null and
void on the ground of Respondents psychological incapacity to
perform and comply with the essential marital obligations under
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

At the time of the filing of the Petition, Petitioner has been

residing for more than six months at 56 Manuel Quezon St Park 1
New Lower Bicutan, Taguig City as proven by, among others,
Barangay Certificate2 and Government-issued ID.3 On the other hand, the
Petitioner submitted a house sketch with the Seal of the Barangay Official 4

1
Records, pp. 1-13
2
Records, p. 16
3
Records, p. 17
4
Compliance dated 27 December 2019, Records, pp 62-64
of the Respondent, as Ordered5 by the Court, to prove that she is
residing at Barangay Midsayap, North Cotabato.6

Upon Petitioner’s compliance with the jurisdictional

requirements, as well as, having furnished the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) and the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP)- Taguig
their respective copies of the Petition and its annexes, the Court
ordered Summons7 to be served upon the Respondent.

On 30 October 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its

Notice of Appearance authorizing the Office of the City Prosecutor -
Taguig City to appear and represent the OSG in the instant Petition

Accordingly, on 28 January 2020, Summons was served upon

the Respondent by the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Regional Trial Court
(RTC) Midsayap, Cotabato, at her last known address.8

On 20 February 2020, the Respondent, through her counsel,

filed a Motion for Extension to File Responsive Pleading 9 praying among
others that on the date that services of Atty. Vicente T. Pastor was
secured by the Respondent, the fifteen (15) day period to submit
responsive pleading has already lapsed.

The Court granted the Motion,10 and an Answer with

Counterclaims with Application for Support Pendente Lite11 was
submitted, averring among others that: (a) during the pendency of
the case, Petitioner should provide support pendente lite to their two
children in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos Each (Php 10,000); (b)
that the custody over their two children be awarded to the
Respondent.

Upon the Prosecutor’s finding that no collusion exists between

the Parties,12 preliminary conference13 and pre-trial14 were conducted.
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

5
Order dated 28th day of October 2019
6
Records, pp. 64
7
Order dated 11 November 2019, Record p. 57
8
Record p. 68
9
Record pp. 70-72
10
Order dated 26 February 2020, Record p. 76
11
File on 05 March 2020, Record p. 77
12
Prosecutors Report, dated 04March 2021, Record p. 114
13
Order dated 12 October 2020, Records, pp.91-93
14
Order dated 15 March 2021, Record p. 123-126
 In the course of the trial, Petitioner presented himself, 15 Jhonray
Herrera16 and the Clinial Phychologist Jeremiah D. Hernandez. 17
Likewise, the following Exhibits were admitted: (1) Marriage Contract18
of the Parties, (2) Certificate of Live Birth19 of Gabriel Jose M. Austero,
(3) Certificate of Live Birth20 of Savannah Aviah M. Austero, (3)
Psychological Evaluation Report,21 (4) Curriculum vitae of Dr.
Hernandez,22 (5) Judicial Affidavit of Dr. Hernandez,23 (6) Professional
Regulation Commission ID of Dr. Hernandez,24 (7) Letter of Invitation to
Ellen Hoyce Marie Maghanoy-Austero,25 (8) Commercial Courier
receipt, 26 (9) Judicial Affidavit of Petitioner Jose Austero,27 (10) Judicial
Affidavit28 of John Ray Herrera.

On 11 May 2022, Respondent, through her counsel, filed a

Comment on Petitioners Formal Offer of Evidence, manifesting that
Exhibits “D”, “E”, “F”, “H”,”I”, “J”, “K”, “L” are self-serving, which
the Court denied29 and admitted Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”,
“F”, “G”, “H”, “I”, “J”, “K”, “L”, finding it meritorious on the
purpose for which they were respectfully offered.

On 09 December 2022, for failure of the Petitioner to file his

Memorandum, this case was submitted for decision

Petitioner’s Evidence

Based on the evidence adduced by the Petitioner, the

antecedents are as follows:

The Petitioner and the Respondent first met

sometime in 2008, when Jose and his frat brothers went to
Davao City and had a drinking session. After which, they
both decided to check-in at a hotel to spend the night.
Several days later, Jose went back to Manila and Elen

15
Order, dated 10 May 2021, Record, p. 148
16
Order, dated 15 November 2021, Record, p.193
17
Order, dated 07 February 2022, Record, p. 198
18
Exhibit “A”, Record p. 19
19
Exhibit “B”, Records pp. 20-21
20
Exhibit “C”, Records p. 22.
21
Exhibit “D”, Records pp. 23-54.
22
Exhibit “E”, Record pp. 216-218
23
Exhibit “F”, Record pp, 270-286.
24
Exhibit “G”, Record p. 287
25
Exhibit “H” Record p. 54
26
Exhibit “I”, Record p. 54
27
Exhibit “J”, Record pp. 130-142
28
Exhibit “K”, Record p. 305-309
29
Order dated 13 May 2022, Record p. 316.
 Joyce decided followed him to look for a job but
unfortunately ended up pregnant.

For the sake of the child, Respondent kept on

insisting that they should get married, even though they
initially planned to save money. On 18 September 1984,
when the Petitioner went to the Respondents house in
Midsayap, Cotabato, they got married at the Office of the
City Mayor. Subsequently, the Parties were blessed with
two (2) wonderful children namely, (1) Gabriel Jose M.
Austero30 and (2) Savannah Aviah M. Austero.31

Prior to their marriage, when they started to live

together, the Petitioner and the Respondent were happy.
The Petitioner always give his ATM card to the
Respondent. Eventually, the former noticed that
whenever he ask for money to give to his parents in
Zamboanga, the latter tells him that they don’t have
enough money.

Around 2014, the relationship of the Respondent

and the Petitioners parents became sour. Later on, they
had a major fight which resulted to the Petitioner living
their home but eventually went home and settled the
issue.

The Parties lived their entire married life with the

Respondents grandmother in Cotabato. Petitioner
showed a very courteous and respectful attitude by
helping in their household chores every time he is home
from a mission.

Eventually, the attitude of the Respondent changed.

She would always embarrass the Petitioner in front of his
staff, easily gets jealous, and throw things towards the
Petitioner. Despite all this, the Petitioner tried to make the
marriage work, however, the Respondent proved to be
impossible.

Thereafter, the Parties separated, living the custody

of their children to the Respondent. As the relationship
turned sour and unbearable by the day, reconciliation
thus become unattainable.

30
Born on 11 August 2009, Record, p. 20
31
Born on 18 January 2013, Record, p. 22
 Thus, the instant Petition.32

Petitioner’s friend, Jhonray testified as to the veracity of the fact

that the instant Parties relationship was full of adversity specially
towards the topic of money and Respondents ungrounded jealousy.

The Petitioner consulted Clinical Psychologist Dr. Jeremiah D.

Hernandez, who concluded that the Petitioner was suffering from
Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder with Narcissistic and Anti-Social
features while the Respondent was suffering from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder.33

Upon admission of the evidence by the Petitioner, the

respondent through Public Attorney Office, manifested that they
have no witness to present and that they are dispensing on the
presentation of evidence. The trial was terminated and the case was
submitted for decision.34

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE OF THE PARTIES SHOULD BE

DECLARED NULL AND VOID ON THE GROUND OF THE HEREIN PARTIES’
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE.

THE COURT’S RULING

The policy of the Constitution is to protect and strengthen the

family as the basic social institution, and marriage as the foundation
of the family. Because of this, the Constitution decrees marriage as
legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the
parties.35

Although marriage is recognized as an inviolable social

institution in our legal system, our laws permit the annulment of
marriages between individuals who lack awareness of their marital
responsibilities due to psychological incapacity. Taking a closer look
at our Family Code, Article 36 explicitly provides:

32
Petition dated 14 October 2019, Records, pp. 02-13 in relation to Petitioners Judicial Affidavit
dated 03 May 2021, Record, pp. 130 -142.
33
Psychological Report, Record pp. 219-235
34
Order dated 23 May 2022, Record pp. 319
35
Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 222541, 15 Feruary 2017
 Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who,
at the time of the celebrating, 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.

New Definition of Psychological

In

Characterizations of Psychological
Incapacity

As time progresses, our courts have had to adapt to the

evolving changes of society in order to uphold the law and maintain
justice. This held true in the case of Rosanna L. Tan-Andal v. Mario
Victor M. Andal,36 where the Supreme Court modified the
characteristics of psychological incapacity in the case of Republic v.
Molina37.

These characterizations of psychological incapacity have now

been modified in Tan-Anda!, as follows:

1. As to gravity, the requirement is retained, albeit not in the

sense that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be serious
or dangerous. Now, one need only to show that the incapacity is
caused by a "genuinely serious psychic cause" rendering one "ill-
equipped" to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.

2. Proof of the juridical antecedence of the psychological

incapacity subsists. For one, this is an indispensable requisite under
Article 36, which states that the incapacity must be existing "at the
time of the celebration" of the marriage, "even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its solemnization."

3. Incurability in its legal sense. Tan-Anda! explains that the

psychological incapacity must be proved to be "so enduring and
persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a
situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so

36
Tan-Anal v. Andal, G.R. No. 19659, 11 May 2021
37
See 335 Phil. 664 (2997)
incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would
be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage"

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/favis?projector=1

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/missvaleriano
%40gmail.com?projector=1

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/33084/ zeth fepolan vs fepolan

 https://chat.openai.com/chat

https://deborjalaw.com/supreme-court-again-relaxes-the-
rules-on-annulment-of-marriage-in-the-philippines/

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25074/