Edward Kenneth Ngo Te v Rowena Ong Guttierez Yu - Te (GR No.

161793, February 13, 2009) FACTS: Petitioner first met respondent in a gathering organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in their college. Initially, the two were not interested with each other. But they eventually developed a certain level of closeness because they share the same trouble with their families. On January 1996, Edward Kenneth decided to court Rowena. The same month, Rowena asked Edward Kenneth to elope with her, to which Edward Kenneth refused because he is still young and jobless. Eventually, the two decided to elope because of Rowenas persistence. Edward Kenneth brought with him P80,000 and they both left Manila and sailed off to Cebu that month. The money soon disappeared and the two were forced to return to their respective homes on April 1996. Subsequently, Rowenas uncle brought them before a court and had them married, but without a marriage license. Edward Kenneth then stayed with Rowena in her uncles home where he was treated as a prisoner. He was prohibited from leaving the house unaccompanied and was frequently threatened by Rowena and her uncle. On May 1996, Edward Kenneth managed to escape to his parents home and he was hidden from Rowenas family. Edward Kenneth later contacted Rowena asking her to live with his parents instead. Rowena argued that he should get his inheritance instead so they could live together separately or just stay with her uncle. However, Edward Kenneth was already disinherited and upon knowing this, Rowena suggested that they should just live separate lives and they then parted ways. After four years, on January 18, 2000, Edward Kenneth filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latters psychological incapacity. Rowena did not file an answer. After investigation, the City Prosecutor cannot determine if there was collusion between the two parties, thus the need to try the merits of the case. Expert opinion was sought and the psychologist subsequently ruled that both parties are psychologically incapacitated. The said relationship between Edward and Rowena is said to be undoubtedly in the wreck and weakly-founded. The break-up was caused by both parties un-readiness to commitment and their young age. He was still in the state of finding his fate and fighting boredom, while she was still egocentrically involved with herself. Both petitioner and respondent are dubbed to be emotionally immature and recklessly impulsive upon swearing to their marital vows as each of them was motivated by different notions on marriage. It was found that the petitioners behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and respondents, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder. The trial court ruled that the marriage is void upon the ruling of the expert psychologist. The OSG appealed and the CA 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 and that the clinical psychologist failed to examine the respondent, relying only on the petitioners testimonies. Furthermore, the psychological incapacity was not attended by the requirements established in the case of Republic v Court of Appeals and Molina: gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.

Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage between the parties is null and void based on Article 36 of the Family Code. HELD: Article 36 of the Family Code provides that A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. The SC ruled that admittedly it may have inappropriately imposed a set of rigid rules in ascertaining Psychological Incapacity as established in the landmark case of Molina. According to Justice Teodoro Padilla, the principle to be followed is that each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. It is the laws clear intention that 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. By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties. There is no requirement that for a person to be declared psychologically incapacitated that he be personally examined by the physician as this could be proven if the totality of evidence is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. The presentation of expert proof by the psychologist provides an in-depth and thorough assessment of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality disorder, 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, and allows others to make most of his important decisions (such as where to live). As clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life. As for the respondent, her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder makes her unable to assume the essential marital obligations on account for her disregard in the rights of others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of others without remorse, and her tendency to blame others. Moreover, as shown in this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; she had no qualms in manipulating petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of committing suicide. Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void The SC then ruled that the marriage between the parties as null and void due to their individual psychological disorders as evidenced by the expert opinion of the clinical psychologist.