NAJERA v.

NAJERA
Topic: Psychological Incapacity; Article 36

FACTS:
Petitioner Digna Najera and respondent Eduardo Najera got married on January 31 1988. They
were childless.
Petitioner claimed that at the time of the celebration of marriage, respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of the marriage, and such incapacity
became manifest only after marriage as shown by the following facts:
o Respondent didnt bother looking for a job, only relied on petitioners elder brother in
landing a job as a seaman
o While working as a seaman, respondent did not give petitioner sufficient financial support
o Every time he goes home for vacation, he quarrels petitioner
o Respondent was always drinking and started smoking marijuana. He also forced her to
smoke marijuana but petitioner refused
o Accused petitioner of having an affair and started to threaten her
o Respondent left the conjugal home and took all his personal belongings. He moved to the
United States.
Petitioner filed, among other things, for the court to declare their marriage void ab initio
Petitioner provided evidence supporting her claim. One of the witnesses was Cristina Gates, a
psychologist.
According to Gates, respondents psychological incapacity and personality disorder is incurable,
despite the fact that she has never personally examined the respondent. She relied on the reports
of petitioner herein.
RTC: Denied the petition for annulment (court granted only legal separation)
CA: Affirmed the decision of the CA

ISSUE: Whether or not the totality of petitioners evidence would suffice the necessary requirements for
annulment of marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code

HELD:
NO
The Court herein ruled that for psychological incapacity to be appreciated and therefore grant the
annulment of marriage, 3 requisites must concur: (1) gravity (2) juridical antecedence (c)
incurability.
The root cause may be medically or clinically identified. What is important is the presence of
evidence that can adequately establish the partys psychological condition.
In the case at bar, the evidence provided by petitioner Digna did not impress the Court.
The testimony provided by Cristina Gates was not enough to convince the Court that respondent
Eduardo was psychologically incapacitated
Gates conclusion that respondent Eduardo was psychologically incapacitated only relied on the
facts relayed by petitioner Digna. Gates did not personally examined the respondent herein, as
evidenced by the stenographic report.

PETITION DENIED