You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No. 161793 EDWARD KENNETH NGO TE, petitioner, vs.

ROWENA ONG GUTIERREZ YU-TE, respondent, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor FACTS: Petitioner and Respondent first met in January 1996 during a party. Sharing similar angst towards their families, the two developed a certain degree of closeness towards each other. Around three months after, Respondent asked the petitioner that they elope. At first Kenneth refused but Rowenas persistence made him relent Thus, they left Manila and sailed to Cebu. After a month, when their daily sustenance depleted, they decided to go back to Manila. Rowena stayed with his uncles house while Edward went back to his parents. Edward was then forced to live with Rowena in the latters house when she threatened to commit suicide if the former refused to live with her. On April 23, 1996, Rowenas uncle brought the two to a court to get married. They continued living with the respondents uncle. While living with respondents uncle, Kenneth was treated like a prisoner. After a month, Kenneth was able to escape from the house of Rowenas uncle and stayed with his parents. After four years petitioner 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. During the trial on the merits, the clinical psychologist found that both the parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform their marital obligations. The trial court rendered its decision based on the examination and declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36 of the Family Code. The OSG, representing the Republic then filed its appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTCs ruling stating that the petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of the respondent since the clinical psychologist failed to personally examine the respondent. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the alleged psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability as provided by Molina Doctrine.

ISSUE: Whether or not, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is null and void. HELD: (YES)

The Supreme Court stated that the Molina Doctrine should not be conveniently applied since such application will allow diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs and the like, to continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage. The Court also ruled that by the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on psychological and mental temperaments of the parties. Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals emphasizes the importance of presenting expert testimony to establish the precise cause of a partys psychological incapacity, and to show that it existed at the inception of marriage. And as Marcos vs. Marcos asserts, 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. The presentation of an expert witness presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or the expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.

You might also like