Scribd
Upload
56 views1 page

Nullity of Marriage: Psychological Incapacity

1) Martin filed a petition to nullify his marriage to Michelle on the grounds of psychological incapacity. The trial court dismissed the petition but the Court of Appeals found evidence that Martin was psychologically incapacitated. 2) The issue is whether the marriage of Javier can be nullified due to psychological incapacity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage is null and void due to Martin's psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage, as psychological incapacity must be grave, juridical, and incurable. However, an actual medical examination is not required if other evidence is sufficient.

Uploaded by

Mary Anne Sagun
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views1 page

Nullity of Marriage: Psychological Incapacity

1) Martin filed a petition to nullify his marriage to Michelle on the grounds of psychological incapacity. The trial court dismissed the petition but the Court of Appeals found evidence that Martin was psychologically incapacitated. 2) The issue is whether the marriage of Javier can be nullified due to psychological incapacity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage is null and void due to Martin's psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage, as psychological incapacity must be grave, juridical, and incurable. However, an actual medical examination is not required if other evidence is sufficient.

Uploaded by

Mary Anne Sagun
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Marlon B.

Sagun (Legal Writing) Case #2


REUBLIC VS. JAVIER
G.R. No. 210518 APRIL 18, 2018

FACTS:
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. The RTC dismissed the petition for failure to establish a sufficient basis for
the declaration of nullity of the respondents' marriage. Unsatisfied with the RTC's ruling, Martin
appealed the denial of his petition to the CA. 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. 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.

ISSUE:
WON, the marriage of Javier’s can be nullify on the ground of psychological incapacity?

RULING:

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. The Court later
clarified in Marcos v. Marcos that for purposes of establishing the psychological incapacity of a
spouse, it is not required that a physician conduct an actual medical examination of the person
concerned. It is enough that the totality of evidence is strong enough to sustain the finding of
psychological incapacity. In such case, however, the petitioner bears a greater burden in proving the
gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of the other spouse's psychological incapacity. While
the Court has consistently followed the parameters in Republic v. Molina, these guidelines are not
meant to straightjacket all petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. The merits of each case are
determined on a case-to-case basis, as no case is on all fours with another.

As a final note, the Court emphasizes that the factual circumstances obtaining in this specific case
warrant the declaration that Martin is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations at the time of his marriage to Michelle. This is neither a relaxation nor abandonment of
previous doctrines relating to Article 36 of the Family Code. The guidelines in Molina still apply to all
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage inasmuch as this Court does not lose sight of the
constitutional protection to the institution of marriage.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is PARTIALLY


GRANTED insofar as the psychological incapacity of respondent Michelle K. Mercado-Javier is
concerned. The Decision dated July 10, 2013 and Resolution dated November 28, 2013 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98015 are MODIFIED to the extent that the marriage of the
respondents on February 8, 2002 is declared NULL and VOID AB INITIO due to the psychological
incapacity of respondent Martin Nikolai Z. Javier, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

You might also like