11/17/24, 9:58 PM Candelario vs.
Candelario
Title
Candelario vs. Candelario
Case Decision
G.R. No. 222068 Date
Jul 25, 2023
In the case of Candelario v. Candelario, the Supreme Court
denies Arthur A. Candelario's petition for the nullity of his
marriage to Marlene E. Candelario, ruling that Article 36 of the
Family Code can be retroactively applied but Arthur failed to
prove his psychological incapacity.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 222068)
Comprehensive
Facts:
Arthur A. Candelario (petitioner) and Marlene E. Candelario
(respondent) were married in a civil ceremony on June 11, 1984, and
had one child born on May 14, 1985. In October 1987, Marlene moved
to Singapore to work as a domestic helper, leaving their child under
Arthur's care. During her absence, Arthur frequented nightclubs
and began an affair, eventually living with his new partner. Marlene
returned to the Philippines in October 1989, discovered Arthur's
infidelity, and separated from him. Their child was taken by Marlene
and raised by her family. Arthur later filed a Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage, citing his psychological incapacity to fulfill
marital obligations. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose,
Antique, Branch 11, denied the petition on March 6, 2015, and
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/candelario-v-candelario?q=222068 1/3
11/17/24, 9:58 PM Candelario vs. Candelario
reaffirmed its decision on December 7, 2015, stating that the Family
Code, which includes psychological incapacity as a ground for
nullity, could not be applied retroactively to their marriage. Arthur
then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
1. Can Article 36 of the Family Code, which provides psychological
incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, be
retroactively applied to marriages celebrated before its
effectivity on August 3, 1988?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied Arthur's petition, affirming the RTC's
decision that his marriage to Marlene is valid and subsisting.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court held that Article 36 of the Family Code can be
retroactively applied to marriages celebrated before its effectivity,
provided no vested or acquired rights are prejudiced. The Court
disagreed with the RTC's conclusion that the Family Code could not
be applied to Arthur and Marlene's marriage. However, the Court
found that Arthur failed to prove his psychological incapacity by
clear and convincing evidence. The psychiatric report presented by
Arthur did not sufficiently establish the gravity, incurability, and
juridical antecedence of his alleged psychological incapacity. The
Court emphasized that psychological incapacity must be shown to
be so severe that it renders a spouse incapable of fulfilling essential
marital obligations, which was not adequately demonstrated in
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/candelario-v-candelario?q=222068 2/3
11/17/24, 9:58 PM Candelario vs. Candelario
Arthur's case. Consequently, the Court upheld the sanctity of the
marriage as mandated by the Constitution.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/candelario-v-candelario?q=222068 3/3
