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.
No comments:
Post a Comment