Te v.

Te On review, the appellate court reversed and set

ARTICLE 36 OF FAMILY CODE
FACTS:
On January 1996 Edward Kenneth Ngo Te, a
sophomore met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te, a
freshman, in a gathering organized by the Filipino-
Chinese association in their college.
They developed a certain degree of closeness
towards each other.
After 2 months, March 1996, Rowena asked
Edward that they elope.
At first, Kenneth refused but Rowena’s persistence
made him relent.
Thus, they left Manila and sailed to Cebu that month;
Kenneth providing their travel money and Rowena,
purchases the boat ticket.
However, Edwards P80,000.00 lasted for only a
month. Their pension house accommodation and
daily sustenance fast depleted it. And they could not
find a job.
aside the trial’s 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.
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.
Because of dissatisfaction, 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 respondent’s
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 the marriage contracted is void on the
ground of psychological incapacity.

On April 1996, they returned to Manila. Rowena HELD:

proceeded to her uncle’s house and Edward to his
parent’s home.
As his family was away, Rowena threatened him
that she would commit suicide, Edward went to
Rowena’s house.
On April 23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought the two
to a court to get married. Kenneth was then 25
years old, and she, 20. Rowena suggested that he
should get his inheritance so that they could live on
their own but Kenneth failed and instead, was aked
to go home.
Yes. The psychologist who provided expert
testimony found both parties psychologically
incapacitated. Edward’s behavioral pattern falls
under the classification of dependent personality
disorder, and Rowena’s, that of the narcissistic and
antisocial personality disorder.
There is no requirement that the person to be
declared psychologically incapacitated be
personally examined by a physician, if the totality of
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding
of psychological incapacity.

The couple continued to stay at Rowena’s uncle’s Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or
place where Edward was treated like a prisoner the like, between the acts that manifest
and was not allowed to go out unaccompanied. psychological incapacity and the psychological
disorder itself.
After a month, Edward escaped from the house and
stayed with his parents. His family then hid him Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and
from Rowena. incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous
marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is
On June 1996, Edward was able to talk to Rowena thus, declared null and void.
and told her that they should live with his parents
but she said that it was better for them to live
separate lives.
On January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before
the RTC of Quezon City, for the annulment of his
marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s
psychological incapacity.
On July 30, 2001, the trial court rendered the
marriage of the parties null and void on the ground
that both parties were psychologically incapacitated
to comply with the essential marital obligations.