REPUBLIC vs JAVIER (G.R. No.

210518, April 18, 2018)

Topic: Psychological Incapacity

Doctrine: In considering psychological incapacity as a ground, “the incapacity must be grave or

serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in
marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were
otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.” 

Facts:

Martin and Michelle were married on February 8, 2002. However, on November 20, 2008,
Martin filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Joint Custody of Common
Minor Child under Article 36 of the Family Code. Martin alleged that both he and Michelle were
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. He thus
prayed for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, and for the joint custody of their minor
child, Amanda M. Javier.

In order to support the allegations in his petition, Martin testified on his own behalf, and
presented the psychological findings of Dr. Elias D. Adamos (Dr. Adamos), which shows that
both Martin and Michelle had Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Their disorder was considered
grave and incurable, and rendered Martin and Michelle incapacitated to perform the essential
obligations of marriage. Dr. Adamos further testified before the RTC to provide his expert
opinion, and stated that with respect to the Psychological Impression Report on Michelle, the
informants were Martin and the respondents' common friend, Jose Vicente Luis Serra (Jose
Vicente). He was unable to evaluate Michelle because she did not respond to Dr. Adamos' earlier
request to come in for psychological evaluation.

Contentions of both parties:

Martin – In his Appellant's Brief, Martin submitted that it is not necessary for the psychologist to
personally examine the incapacitated spouse, or Michelle in this case, before the court may rule
on the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. He also argued that, at the very least, there
was sufficient evidence to support his own diagnosis of psychological incapacity. 

Republic – Arguing that there was no basis for Dr. Adamos' findings as to Michelle's
psychological incapacity, the Republic asserts that there was no independent proof to establish
this claim. Furthermore, the Republic argued that Martin supported his petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage with self-serving testimonies and hearsay evidence.

Ruling of RTC, CA:

RTC – dismissed the petition for failure to establish a sufficient basis for the declaration of
nullity of the respondents' marriage. 
CA – granted the appeal; the CA found that there was sufficient evidence to support Martin's
claim that he is psychologically incapacitated. The CA also negated the RTC's ruling by referring
to Martin's own testimony, in which he narrated his tendency to impose his own unrealistic
standards on Michelle. In its challenged decision, the CA likewise ruled that Michelle's diagnosis
was adequately supported by the narrations of Martin and Jose Vicente.

Issue/s: Whether the totality of evidence supports the finding that Martin is psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of marriage

Ruling of SC: YES.

The psychological incapacity of a spouse must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical
antecedence; and (c) incurability, which the Court discussed in Santos v. CA, et al. as follows:

The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of
the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only
after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved. 

This notwithstanding, the Court disagrees with the CA's findings that Michelle was
psychologically incapacitated. We cannot absolutely rely on the Psychological Impression
Report on Michelle. There were no other independent evidence establishing the root cause or
juridical antecedence of Michelle's alleged psychological incapacity. While this Court cannot
discount their first-hand observations, it is highly unlikely that they were able to paint Dr.
Adamos a complete picture of Michelle's family and childhood history. The records do not show
that Michelle and Jose Vicente were childhood friends, while Martin, on the other hand, was
introduced to Michelle during their adulthood. Either Martin or Jose Vicente, as third persons
outside the family of Michelle, could not have known about her childhood, how she was raised,
and the dysfunctional nature of her family. Without a credible source of her supposed childhood
trauma, Dr. Adamos was not equipped with enough information from which he may reasonably
conclude that Michelle is suffering from a chronic and persistent disorder that is grave and
incurable.

Martin, on the other hand, was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, with tendencies
toward sadism. Dr. Adamos concluded from the tests administered on Martin that this disorder
was rooted in the traumatic experiences he experienced during his childhood, having grown up
around a violent father who was abusive of his mother. This adversely affected Martin in such a
manner that he formed unrealistic values and standards on his own marriage, and proposed
unconventional sexual practices. When Michelle would disagree with his ideals, Martin would
not only quarrel with Michelle, but would also inflict harm on her. Other manifestations include
excessive love for himself, self-entitlement, immaturity, and self-centeredness.

These circumstances, taken together, prove the three essential characteristics of psychological
incapacity on the part of Martin. As such, insofar as the psychological incapacity of Martin is
concerned, the CA did not commit a reversible error in declaring the marriage of the
respondents null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.