Candelario vs. Candelario, G.R. No.
222068, 25 July  The Court initially DENIED Arthur’s Petition for
2023
Facts:
 Arthur and Marlene married in a civil ceremony on
11 June 1984 and have one child together.
 Marlene decided to work as a domestic helper in
Singapore.
 Arthur had an affair.
 When Marlene returned, she discovered that
Arthur and his paramour were already living
together in their conjugal dwelling.
 Marlene separated from Arthur and took custody
of their child.
 Arthur continued living with his new partner and
they produced four children.
 More than 20 years later, Arthur filed before the
RTC a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage, alleging that his marriage with Marlene
was void ab initio due to his own psychological
incapacity to comply with his essential marital
obligations.
 A psychiatry practitioner testified in favor of Arthur
and diagnosed him with Dependent Personality
Disorder due to his low self-esteem and fear of
abandonment from an overprotective parental
figure which existed prior to his marriage with
Marlene. The doctor noted that this disorder was
not likely to respond to any treatment. This
disorder renders Arthur incapable to do his marital
obligations to love, care, respect, render support,
ad fidelity to his spouse.
RTC Decision
 RTC found that Arthur was able to establish his
psychological incapacity, however the Lower Court
still DENIED his petition for the reason that Arthur
and Marlene’s marriage cannot be nullified under
Article 35 of the Family Code considering that the
Code only became effective on 03 Augus 1988, a
few years after their marriage was celebrated.
 His MR was likewise denied.
SC Decision
 The OSG was impleaded in the case.
Review on Certiorari but eventually granted his MR.
 The Family Code, including the concept of
psychological incapacity, shall be given
RETROACTIVE EFFECT, to the extent that no vested
or acquired rights under relevant laws will be
prejudiced or impaired.
 Arthur has mentioned in his petition that during
their marriage they did not acquire real and
personal properties of significant value.
 Marlene failed to mention at the first possible
instance that she would have any vested or
acquired right that would be prejudiced if the FC
was given a retroactive effect. Thus, she has waived
the right ro prove this matter.
 There have also been numerous cases promulgated
by the Court wherein Art. 36 was applied
retroactively, one of which is the case of Chi Ming
Tsoi vs. CA.
 Despite ruling that the provision can be
retroactively applied to marriages celebrated
before the effectivity of the FC, the SC nonetheless
DENIED this petition.
 SC found that Arthur failed to prove that he was
indeed psychologically incapacitated.
 The psychiatric report failed to show that Arthur’s
condition made it practically impossible for him to
comply with the ordinary duties required in
marriages.
 The requirements of GRAVITY, INCURABILITY, and
JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE were not established.
 It appears that Arthur simply made no real effort to
work on his marriage with Marlene.