NGO-TE v.

TE NACHURA

Facts:
The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six (6) months. They met in January 1996,
eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. After almost four years, or
on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City for the
annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity. The
psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated.
Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and
the respondent’s, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder.

The trial court, on July 30, 2001, 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. 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. Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability. 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. Dissatisfied, 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, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is null and
void?

Held: Yes, the marriage between the parties is null and void. While 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.