Te vs.

Te 579 scra 193

Nachura, J :

FACTS:

Edward Kenneth Ngo Te met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu at a

Filipino-Chinese gathering at a school campus. They did not
have interest with each other at first but they developed a
certain degree of closeness due to the fact that they share
the same angst with their families. In 1996, while still in
college, Rowena proposed to Kenneth that they should
elope. Kenneth initially refused on the ground that he was
still young and jobless. But due to Rowenas persistence
Kenneth complied bringing with him P80K. The money soon
after disappeared and they found themselves forced to
return to their respective home. Subsequently, Rowenas
uncle brought the two before a court and had had them be
married. After marriage, Kenneth and Rowena stayed with
her uncles house where Kenneth was treated like a prisoner.

Meanwhile, Kenneth was advised by his dad to come home

otherwise he will be disinherited. One month later, Kenneth
was able to escape and he was hidden from Rowenas family.
Kenneth later contacted Rowena urging her to live
with his parents instead. Rowena however suggested that he
should get his inheritance instead so that they could live
together separately or just stay with her uncle. Kenneth
however was already disinherited. Upon knowing this,
Rowena said that it is better if they live separate lives from
then on. Four years later, Kenneth filed a petition for
annulment of his marriage with Rowena. Rowena did not file
1

an answer. The City Prosecutor, after investigation,

submitted that he cannot determine if there is collusion
between the two parties.

Eventually, the case was tried. The opinion of an expert was

sought wherein the psychologist subsequently ruled that
both parties are psychologically incapacitated. The said
relationship between Kenneth and Rowena is said to be
undoubtedly in the wreck and weakly-founded. The breakup was caused by both parties unreadiness to commitment
and their young age. Kenneth was still in the state of
finding his fate and fighting boredom, while Rowena was still
egocentrically involved with herself. The trial court ruled that
the marriage is void upon the findings of the expert
psychologist.

The Solicitor General (OSG) appealed and the Court of

Appeals ruled in favor of the OSG. The OSG claimed that the
psychological incapacity of both parties was not shown to be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable (Molinacase).
The clinical psychologist did not personally examine Rowena,
and relied only on the information provided by Kenneth.
Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be
attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.
All these were requirements set forth in the Molina caseto be
followed as guidelines

ISSUE: Whether or not the expert opinion of the

psychologist should be admitted in lieu of the guidelines
established in the landmark case of Molina. And in lieu of
this, whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground
of psychological incapacity.

HELD: Yes, such is possible. The Supreme Court ruled that

admittedly, the SC may have inappropriately imposed a set
of rigid rules in ascertaining Psychological Incapacity in
the Molina case. So much so that the subsequent cases
after Molina were ruled accordingly to the doctrine set
therein. And that there is not much regard for the laws clear
intention that each case is to be treated differently, as
courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case
basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of
church tribunals. The SC however is not abandoning
the Molina guidelines, the SC merely reemphasized that
there is need to emphasize other perspectives as well which
should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of
nullity under Article 36 such as in the case at bar. The
principle that each case must be judged, not on the basis
of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but
according to its own facts. And, to repeat for emphasis,
courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case
basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of
church tribunals.
The SC then ruled that the marriage of Kenneth and Rowena
is null and void due to both parties psychological disorder as
evidenced by the finding of the expert psychologist. Both
parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable
psychological incapacity. Kenneth cannot assume the
essential marital obligations of living together, observing
love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for
he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from
others. He is too dependent on others. Rowena cannot
perform the essential marital obligations as well due to her
intolerance and impulsiveness
3