Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R.No.

136490, October 19, 2000

Facts:
Plaintiff Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging that the
husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the marriage for psychological incapacity. The RTC
declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36 which was however reversed by CA.

Issues:
Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a physician is a
requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.
Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity.

Held:
Psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the
totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however that the respondent be examined by a
physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration. Although this Court is
sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may have
resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of
psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already
present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Verily, the behavior of respondent can
be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than
six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral
support, and even left the family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said
period and not to the inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his
condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. In sum, this Court
cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of the petitioner to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurabilty and for her
failure to observe the guidelines as outline in Republic v. CA and Molina.

Te vs. Te, G.R. NO. 161793, February 13, 2009

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. On March 1996, Rowena asked Edward that they elope. At first,
he refused but Rowena’s persistence made him relent. They left Manila and went to Cebu that month.
Edwards money lasted for only a month and they could not find a job. On April 1996, they returned
to Manila. Rowena proceeded to her uncles house and Edward to his parents home. As his family was
away, Rowena threathened him that she would commit suicide, Edward go to Rowena’s house. On April
23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought the two to a court to get married. The couple continued to stay at
Rowena’s uncles place where Edward was treated like a prisoner and was not allowed to go out
unaccompanied. After a month, Edward escaped from the house and stayed with his parents. His family
then hid him from Rowena. On June 1996, Edward was able to talk to Rowena 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 latters 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. On review, the appellate court reversed and set 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.

HELD:
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. Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that
manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.
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.