Nullification of Marriage Under Article 36 (Psychological Incapacity) of The Family Code

Republic vs. Javier

G.R. No. 210518, April 18, 2018

Facts:
Martin Javier sought to nullify her marriage with Michelle Javier on the ground that both
of them were both psychologically incapacitated, as provided for under Article 36 of the Family
Code. He submitted the psychological evaluations of Dr. Elias D. Adamos, with whom he
underwent counselling for a year. However, the evaluation for his wife was only based on his
narration and that of Jose Vicente Luis Serra, a common friend of him and his wife. Dr. Adamos’
diagnosis indicated that both Martin and Michelle suffered Narcissistic Personality Disorder,
considered grave and incurable, and rendered them incapacitated to perform essential marital
obligations.

Issue:
Should the marriage of Martin and Michelle be declared null and void based on the findings
of Dr. Adamos?

Ruling:
Yes, but only for the findings on Martin. The Supreme Court held that Dr. Adamos’
diagnosis for Martin was sufficiently in-depth and comprehensive while the same was not true for
Michelle’s diagnosis. While the Court yielded to the acceptability of psychological evaluations
based on third-person accounts, the same should be viewed with extreme caution since third-
person accounts of facts, particularly that of the husband seeking nullification of marriage, could
be laden with biases. Moreover, Dr. Adamos did not interview anyone who could have sufficient
knowledge on Michelle’s childhood, from which, the psychological incapacity was allegedly
rooted. In Martin’s case, Dr. Adamos’ findings of the traumatic experiences with an abusive father
was personally relayed by Martin.
The Court held that Martin was indeed psychologically incapacitated. Thus, his marriage
with Michelle was declared null and void. Further, the Court emphasized that nullification of
marriage should still be determined on a case-to-case basis following the guidelines enunciated in
Republic vs. Molina.