Digest Author: Dodot

Ngo Te v. Yu-Te (2009) Petition: review on certiorari [decision of the CA] Petitioner: Edward Ngo Te Respondent: Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te Ponente: J. Nachura Date: 13 February 2009 Facts:

1996 January Edward glimpses Rowena during a Fil-Chi association gathering at their college. (Tsismis: Edward initially attracted to Rowenas friend, but she already had a boyfriend at the time.) o You and me against the world: early on, Edward and Rowena bonded over their angst for their respective families. March 1996 Rowena asks Edward to elope with her. o Initially Edward refused, on grounds that he was young and jobless. o Eventually though, Edward agreed and they sailed for Cebu (from Mla.): Edward brought P80,000 while Rowena bought their boat tickets. o In Cebu, their funds quickly ran out neither could find a job. April 1996 the two head back to Mla.: Rowena stayed at her Uncles while Edward stayed at his parents. o Edwards family was abroad Rowena kept telephoning Edward, and kept threatening that she would commit suicide. o To placate her, Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at her uncles place. 23 April 1996 Rowenas uncle brought the two to a court to get married: at the time Edward was 25 while Rowena was 20. o The two continued to stay at Rowenas Uncles, but Edward was being made to feel like a prisoner: Not allowed to get out unaccompanied Rowenas uncle kept showing Edward his guns Rowenas uncle kept warning Edward about leaving Rowena. o Upon being told by Edward about his situation, Rowena suggested that Edward should get his inheritance so that the two of them could live on their own. Edward asked his dad, but the response he got was angry he was told that he would be disinherited; his dad insisted that Edward should come home. June 1996 Edward talked to Rowena about the possibility of the two of them moving in to Edwards parents house: but Rowena would not agree. o The breakup: Rowena said it would be better for them to live separate lives thus, they parted ways. 18 June 2000 Edward files for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena before the QC RTC, Br. 106, on the basis of Rowenas psychological incapacity. o Birds of a feather: Interestingly, the clinical psychologist who examined Edward found both parties to be psychologically incapacitated. (See Ratio.) Note, however, that the clinical psychologist was only able to personally examine Edward; his opinion on Rowena was based solely on Edwards testimony of her behavior. 30 July 2001 QC RTC declared the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. 5 August 2001 On review, the CA reversed the decision of QC RTC: o Petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of the respondent (the psychologist was only able to personally examine the petitioner); o The psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability: failed to live up to the stringent standards in Molina. o The CA subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration put forward by the petitioner. Edwards psychological profile: Afflicted with dependent personality disorder. Inability to meet marital obligations (living together, observing love, respect and fidelity, and rendering help and support) due to: o His inability to make everyday decisions without advice from others; o His tendency to agree with people [even if he thinks they are wrong]; o His difficulty doing things on his own; o His tendency to volunteer to do demeaning things in order to get approval; o His feelings of uncomfortable/helpless when alone; he is preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. o His insecurity and gullibility; o His lack of a sense of identity as a person a lack of a cohesive self;

Digest Author: Dodot

o His lack of clear goals/direction in life.

Rowenas psychological profile: Afflicted with antisocial personality disorder. Inability to meet marital obligations due to: o Her disregard for the rights of others; o Her abuse, maltreatment and control of others without remorse; o Her tendency to blame others; o Her intolerance of the conventional behavioral limitations imposed by society. o Her tendency to be impulsive and domineering. o Her nonchalant attitude vis--vis manipulating Edward with threats of blackmail and of committing suicide. Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts: Dependent Personality Disorder a personality disorder that is characterized by a pervasive psychological dependence on other people. This personality disorder is a long-term (chronic) condition in which people depend on others to meet their emotional and physical needs, with depending on themselves a minority. (Wikipedia)
A personality disorder characterized by a pattern of dependent and submissive behavior. Such individuals usually lack selfesteem and frequently belittle their capabilities; they fear criticism and are easily hurt by others comments. At times they actually bring about dominance by others through a quest for overprotection. Dependent personality disorder usually begins in early adulthood. Individuals who have this disorder may be unable to make everyday decisions without advice or reassurance from others, may allow others to make most of their important decisions (such as where to live), tend to agree with people even when they believe they are wrong, have difficulty starting projects or doing things on their own, volunteer to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people, feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone and are often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.

Antisocial Personality Disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. (Wikipedia)
Characteristics include a consistent pattern of behavior that is intolerant of the conventional behavioral limitations imposed by a society, an inability to sustain a job over a period of years, disregard for the rights of others (either through exploitiveness or criminal behavior), frequent physical fights and, quite commonly, child or spouse abuse without remorse and a tendency to blame others. There is often a faade of charm and even sophistication that masks disregard, lack of remorse for mistreatment of others and the need to control others. Although characteristics of this disorder describe criminals, they also may befit some individuals who are prominent in business or politics whose habits of self-centeredness and disregard for the rights of others may be hidden prior to a public scandal. During the 19th century, this type of personality disorder was referred to as moral insanity. The term described immoral, guiltless behavior that was not accompanied by impairments in reasoning. According to the classification system used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3d ed., rev. 1987), anti-social personality disorder is one of the four dramatic personality disorders, the others being borderline, histrionic and narcissistic.

Sec. 2(d) A.m. No. 02-11-10-SC 2003-03-04 [RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES]
What to allege.A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration. The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.

In the resolution declaring the new rule to be in effect [which seems to make the requisite conditions for declaring the absolute nullity of a marriage pursuant to Art. 36 of the FC less stringent], the following Justices expressed their concurrence: Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.

Digest Author: Dodot

o o o Vitug, J., expressed a separate opinion: it is my understanding that neither Santos nor Molina has been made irrelevant, let alone necessarily overturned by the new rules. Panganiban, J dissented. Ynares-Santiago, and Coronna, JJ. Were on leave.

Issues: 1. Was the marriage entered into by Edward and Rowena void, pursuant to Art. 36 of the Family Code? Ruling: 1. YES. Both Edward and Rowena are psychologically incapacitated, and were so at the time they were married.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The ponente began his opinion by hinting at a more liberal interpretation of void marriages, via Art. 36 of the FC: Psychological incapacity, since its incorporation in our laws, has become a clichd subject of discussion in our jurisprudence. The Court treats this case, however, with much ado, it having realized that current jurisprudential doctrine has unnecessarily imposed a perspective by which psychological incapacity should be viewed, totally inconsistent with the way the concept was formulatedfree in form and devoid of any definition. In deciding cases pursuant to Art. 36, the ponente stated that although courts have the primary task/burden of decision-making, they must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperament of the parties. Consequently, the case was decided on less stringent considerations that those set in Molina. Even in Molina, there was an express recognition of the crucial role of expert opinion in the development of void marriages due to psychological incapacity. As explained by Justice Romero: [the Churchs] new openness in this area did not amount to the addition of new grounds for annulment, but rather was an accommodation by the Church to the advances made in psychology during the past decades. There was now the expertise to provide the all-important connecting link between a marriage breakdown and premarital causes. Hernandez v. CA emphasized the importance of expert testimony in establishing the precise cause of psychological incapacity. The ponente stated that expert assessment can result in a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe, and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.

In the case at hand, the expert testimony was able to establish that both parties were indeed afflicted with personality disorders at the time of marriage. Given the seriousness of the diagnosis, and the gravity of the personality disorders, the Supreme Court can rule that the marriage of the parties is null and void on ground of both parties psychological incapacity. In the remarks section of the clinical psychologists report: In the case presented by the petitioner and respondent[,] (sic) it is evidently clear that both parties have impulsively taken marriage for granted as they are still unaware of their own selves. He is extremely introvert to the point of weakening their relationship by his weak behavioral disposition. She, on the other hand[,] is extremely exploitative and aggressive so as to be unlawful, insincere and undoubtedly uncaring in her strides toward convenience. It is apparent that she is suffering the grave, severe, and incurable presence of Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder that started since childhood and only manifested during marriage. Both parties display psychological incapacities that made marriage a big mistake for them to take.
Opinions: No separate opinions.

Decision: Petition for certiorari [CA] granted; decision and resolution of CA, reversed and set aside; decision of QC RTC reinstated. Principles: Citizenship [repatriation of natural-born Filipinos]