Kenneth Ngo Te vs Rowena Yu Te (G.R. No.

161793)
Tags: Marriage
0
FACTS: The parties whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six (6) months. They met in January
1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. After almost four years,
or on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City for
the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latters psychological incapacity. The
psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioners
behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and the respondents,
that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder.
The trial court, on July 30, 2001, rendered its decision declaring the marriage of the parties null and void
on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations. On review, the appellate court reversed and set aside the trials court ruling. It ruled that
petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent, for the clinical psychologist did not
personally examine respondent, and relied only on the information provided by petitioner. Further, the
psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.
In sum, the evidence adduced fell short of the requirements stated in the Molina case needed for the
declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed
before the SC the instant petition for review on certiorari. He posited that the trial court declared the
marriage void, not only because of respondents psychological incapacity, but rather due to both parties
psychological incapacity. He also pointed out that there is no requirement for the psychologist to
personally examine respondent.

ISSUE: Whether, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is null and
void?

HELD: The petition for review for certiorari was granted. The decision of the CA was reversed and set
aside, and the decision of the trial court was reinstated. Both parties afflicted with grave, severe and
incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage is, thus, declared null and void. For the
fulfillment of the obligations of marriage depends on the strength of this interpersonal relationship. A
serious incapacity for interpersonal sharing and support is held to impair the relationship and
consequently, the ability to fulfill the essential marital obligations.
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in
the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of
the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
In dissolving the marital bonds on account of either partys psychological incapacity, the Court is not
demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the
essential marital obligations, from remaining that sacred bond. Let it be noted that in Art. 36, there is no
marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning.