CASE DIGEST

11) ARTHUR A. CALENDARIO, Petitioner vs. MARLENE E. CANDELARIO, Respondent

G.R. No. [Insert Docket Number], [Insert Date]

FACTS:

The case revolves around the marital union of Arthur A. Calendario (hereinafter "Arthur") and
Marlene E. Candelario (hereinafter "Marlene"). Arthur and Marlene entered into matrimony
through a civil ceremony on June 11, 1984, from which a child was born on May 14, 1985.
Subsequently, Marlene sought employment as a domestic helper in Singapore to secure a better
future for their child, entrusting the care of their offspring to Arthur, who was engaged in
farming.

During Marlene's absence, Arthur frequented nightclubs and commenced an extramarital

relationship with his current partner. Upon discovering Arthur's infidelity, Marlene clandestinely
returned to the Philippines in October 1989, only to find that Arthur was cohabiting with his
newfound partner. Faced with this situation, Marlene decided to separate from Arthur, taking
their child with her, and entrusting the child's upbringing to Marlene's mother and sister. In
contrast, Arthur continued living with his new partner, with whom he had four children.

After more than 20 years, Arthur initiated a petition for the annulment of his marriage to Marlene
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). His primary defense rested on alleging his psychological
incapacity to fulfill his essential marital obligations.

Upon examination, it was established that Arthur suffered from Dependent Personality Disorder,
as certified by Dr. Chua-Daquilanea. This disorder manifested through an extreme pattern of
dependency stemming from low self-esteem and fear of abandonment rooted in an overprotective
parental figure. Marlene exhibited no such disorder and was capable of fulfilling her marital
obligations.

On March 6, 2015, the RTC dismissed Arthur's petition for lack of merit and on the ground that
Article 36 of the Family Code could not be applied retroactively to marriages celebrated before
its effective date of August 3, 1988, as a general principle of law precludes retroactive
application.\

ISSUES:
1. Whether Article 36 of the Family Code can be retroactively applied to marriages that occurred
before its effectivity on August 3, 1988.

2. Whether the petitioner's psychological incapacity, as a ground under Article 36, can be
retroactively applied to his case.

RULING:

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the RTC erred in its determination that
the marriage of Arthur and Marlene could not be nullified due to the non-retroactivity of Article
36 of the Family Code. However, However, Arthur failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that his personality disorder was one of the psychological incapacity within the
meaning of Art. 36 of the Family Code that would nullify his marital bond with Marlene.

Wherefore, the petition is DENIED on March 6, 2015 Decision and Order of the RTC of San
Jose, Antique branch was AFFIRMED on December 7, 2015. The marriage was declared
VALID and SUBSISTING.