UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons

Yap (B2023) Ma’am Pangalangan

Te vs Te
G.R. No. 161793– Feb. 13, 2009
Supreme Court

Article/s invoked
 Article 36, Family Code; 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.

Case Summary
A petition for review on certiorari against the Aug. 5, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeals, as well as the
Jan. 19, 2004 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner Edward Te courted respondent
Rowena Yu-Te in January 1996. Edward comes from an affluent family. In March 1996, Rowena asked
Edward that they elope. At first Edward refused, saying that they were young and jobless but Rowena was
relentless. In the end, Edward succumbed. They sailed for Cebu and lived there for a month. After a month,
Edward’s P80,000 was depleted and the couple could not find a job. On April 1996, they went back to Manila,
with Rowena proceeding to her uncle’s house and Edward to his parents’ home. After phoning Edward
multiple times threatening to commit suicide, Edward relented and stayed at her uncle’s home as well. On
April 23 , 1996, petitioner and respondent brought the couple to court and married them through court.
Edward was held captive in the house and was not allowed to go out unaccompanied, being threatened by
guns if he wish to leave the house and/or think of leaving Rowena. Edward escaped and his family hid him
from Rowena. January 18, 2000, the petitioner filed before the RTC of Quezon City an annulment of his
marriage to Rowena on the basis of his spouse’s psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court later granted
the decision of the Trial Court declaring the marriage null and void.

FACTS OF THE CASE

I. April 23, 1996
a. Petitioner and respondent married through court.
II. January 18, 2000
a. Petitioner filed for annulment before the RTC of Quezon City on the grounds of Rowena’s
psychological incapacity.
III. July 11, 2000
a. RTC-QC ordered the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) to investigate if there was collusion
between the two parties.
IV. August 23, 2000
a. OCP could not find collusion, thus it recommended trial on merits. A clinical psychologist was
called and found both to be psychologically incapacitated.
V. July 30, 2001
a. Trial court declared the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that both parties
were psychological incapacitated to comply with the essential marriage obligations. The
Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its notice of appeal.
VI. August 5, 2003
a. Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court’s ruling as the petitioner failed to prove
the psychological incapacity of respondent, seeing as only the petitioner was tested and
interviewed. CA also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 19, 2004.
VII. Petitioner filed for certiorari with the Supreme Court. He posits that the RTC declared the marriage
void due to both parties’ psychological incapacity and that there was no requirement for the
psychologist to personally examine the respondent.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons
Yap (B2023) Ma’am Pangalangan
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S
1) W/N the marriage between the parties is null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
YES
 The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriage
declares that marriages may be declared null and void when either/both of the participants are afflicted
with psychological incapacity (subsumed under “special cases and special situations” in Art. 36 FC).
 Petitioner is afflicted by dependent personality disorder while the respondent is afflicted with antisocial
personality disorder, making both of them unable to assume essential marital obligations.
 Both parties are afflicted with grave, sever, and incurable psychological incapacity. The court declared
marriage they contracted on April 23, 1996 null and void.

RULING
The petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Decision dated July 30, 2001 is REINSTATED.

SEPARATE OPINION/S

NOTES
 Petitioner was from a rich family. When petitioner married respondent, the petitioner was “disowned”
by the family (but not really, this was only to dissuade respondent from pursuing the petitioner further),
thereby losing his inheritance. When petitioner filed for an annulment, the respondent did not yet know
that he was “disinherited/disowned” and she fought to stay with the petitioner. Once the petitioner
made this fact known to her, the respondent then did not seem to care for the result of the case, leading
the clinical psychologist to assume that respondent was a gold digger and therefore psychologically
incapacitated.
 One guideline enumerated for the interpretation and application of Art. 36 is: “Such incapacity must
also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute
or even relative only in regard to the other spouse.”
 The ground of psychological incapacity was subsumed under “special cases and special situations” in
Art. 36 FC.
 Nowhere in the CC provisions on Marriage is there a ground for avoiding or annulling marriages that
comes close to being psychological in nature.
 “Psychological incapacity” is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It refers to no
less than a mental incapacity that causes a party to be noncognitive of the basic marital covenants.
 Guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 FC
o Burden of proof to show nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
o 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.
o Incapacity must be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
o Illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage.
o Essential marital obligations are found in Art. 68-71 FC and Art. 220, 221, 225 FC.
o The trial court must order the prosecuting atty. or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, stating his reasons for agreement or
opposition.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons
Yap (B2023) Ma’am Pangalangan
 Dependent personality disorder – dependent and submissive, lack of self-esteem, fear of criticism,
easily hurt by others, preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.
 Antisocial personality disorder – unable to sustain a job for a period of years, disregard for the rights
of others, frequent physical fights, tendency to blame others, lack of remorse for mistreatment of
others, façade of charm and/or sophistication masking disregard, need to control others, self-centered.