<Psychological Incapacity > <Te vs. Te > <Zarah Jeanine M.

Canuto>
<G.R. No. 161793> <February 13, 2009> <Nachura J.>
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER
What are the reasons why some cases are granted some are not?
Psychological Incapacity – must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. It must be grave and serious such that
the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. (Santos v. CA)
RECIT-READY / SUMMARY
Petitioner Edward Kenneth Ngo-Te and Respondent Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te, entered into a “stillborn” marriage. Both are not yet
ready for the marriage, marriage is not the answer for their issues and both are incapacitated psychologically to resume the marriage.
FACTS
Petitioner - Edward Kenneth Ngo-Te ; Respondent – Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te

-January 1996, Edward Kenneth Ngo-Te and Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te met in a gathering organized by the Filipino-Chinese
association in their School. Edward was initially attracted to Rowena’s friend but unfortunately the friend of the respondent has a
boyfriend. Edward decided instead to court the respondent. Petitioner was a sophomore and Respondent is freshman.
-March 1996, Rowena asked Edward that they elope because of their angst towards their respective families. At first the petitioner
refused, because they are still young and jobless. Her persistence to elope however made the petitioner relent to the plan. They eloped to
Cebu, he providing the travel money and she purchasing the boat ticket. They are supposedly going to stay at the Respondent’s Friend but
failed to locate her ending up to the petitioner pay the rent of pension house and daily sustenance. Failed to find a job. But as soon as their
P80,000 survival money was depleted they returned to Manila.
-Rowena proceeded to her uncle’s house and Edward to his parent’s home. The Petitioner’s family was in abroad at the time and Rowena
kept on telephoning him. Threatening that she would commit suicide, Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at her uncle’s house.
-April 23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought both parties to a court to be married. Edward was 25 years old and Rowena 20. The two
continued to stay at her uncle’s house where Edward was treated like a prisoner. He was not allowed to go out w/o a companion. Her
uncle also showed guns to Edward and warned him not to leave Rowena.
- At one point Edward was able to call home and talk to his brother who suggested that the couple should stay at the Petitioner’s family
house and live with them. Edward relayed it to Rowena, but she suggested that Edward should get his inheritance so that they could live
on their own. Edward talked to his father and got mad at him. Told that Edward would be disinherited and insisted that Edward must go
home.
- After a month, Edward escaped from the house of Rowena’s uncle, and stayed with his parents. His family then hid him from Rowena
and her family whenever they telephoned to ask for him.
- In June 1996, Edward was able to talk to Rowena. Unmoved by his persistence that they should live with his parents, she said that it was
better for them to live separate lives. They then parted ways.
- After almost four years, on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the RTC of Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage
and sited Psychological Incapacity.
- As Rowena did not file an answer, the trial court.
- On July 11, 2000, ordered the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City to investigate whether there was collusion between the
parties.
- On July 27, 2000, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance and deputized the OCP to appear on its behalf and
assist it in the scheduled hearings.
- On August 23, 2000, the OCP submitted an investigation report stating that it could not determine if there was collusion between the
parties; thus, it recommended trial on the merits.
- The clinical psychologist who examined petitioner found both parties psychologically incapacitated.
- On July 30, 2001, The Trial Court 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.
- The Republic represented by OSG appealed to the trial court’s decision.
-On August 5, 2003, the appellate court reversed and set aside the trial court’s ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the
psychological incapacity of respondent. The clinical psychologist did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the
information provided by petitioner.
- Dissatisfied, petitioner filed before this Court the instant petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED

1. WON, the marriage between the parties is null and void?
2. WON, Psychological Incapacity can be applied. Art. 36 of Family Code

HELD
<Psychological Incapacity > <Te vs. Te > <Zarah Jeanine M. Canuto>
<G.R. No. 161793> <February 13, 2009> <Nachura J.>
1. 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 party’s 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.

2. Yes, given that both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity. Edward being
extremely introvert to the point of weakening their relationship by his weak behavioral disposition and Rowena being
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 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. The precipitous marriage which they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void.
OPINION (CONCURRING) OPINION (DISSENTING)