Te vs. Te GR No.

161793, February 13, 2009 FACTS: Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te in a gathering organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in their college !nitially" he was attracted to Rowena#s close friend b$t" as the latter already had a boyfriend" the yo$ng man decided to co$rt Rowena" which happened in %an$ary &''( !t was Rowena who as)ed that they elope b$t Edward ref$sed bic)ering that he was yo$ng and *obless +er persistence" howe,er" made him relent They left -anila and sailed to Ceb$ that month. he" pro,iding their tra,el money of P/0"000 and she" p$rchasing the boat tic)et They decided to go bac) to -anila in April &''( Rowena proceeded to her $ncle#s ho$se and Edward to his parents# home E,ent$ally they got married b$t witho$t a marriage license Edward was prohibited from getting o$t of the ho$se $naccompanied and was threatened by Rowena and her $ncle After a month" Edward escaped from the ho$se" and stayed with his parents Edward#s parents wanted them to stay at their ho$se b$t Rowena ref$sed and demanded that they ha,e a separate abode !n %$ne &''(" she said that it was better for them to li,e separate li,es and they then parted ways After fo$r years in %an$ary 1000" Edward filed a petition for the ann$lment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter#s psychological incapacity !SS2E: 3hether the marriage contracted is ,oid on the gro$nd of psychological incapacity +E45: The parties# whirlwind relationship lasted more or less si6 months They met in %an$ary &''(" eloped in -arch" e6changed marital ,ows in -ay" and parted ways in %$ne The psychologist who pro,ided e6pert testimony fo$nd both parties psychologically incapacitated Petitioner#s beha,ioral pattern falls $nder the classification of dependent personality disorder" and respondent#s" that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder
There is no re7$irement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be personally e6amined by a physician" if the totality of e,idence presented is eno$gh to s$stain a finding of psychological incapacity 8erily" the e,idence m$st show a lin)" medical or the li)e" between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself The presentation of e6pert proof pres$pposes a thoro$gh and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or e6pert" for a concl$si,e diagnosis of a gra,e" se,ere and inc$rable presence of psychological incapacity !ndeed" petitioner" afflicted with dependent personality disorder" cannot ass$me the essential marital obligations of li,ing together" obser,ing lo,e" respect and fidelity and rendering help and s$pport" for he is $nable to ma)e e,eryday decisions witho$t ad,ice from others" and allows

others to ma)e most of his important decisions 9s$ch as where to li,e: As clearly shown in this case" petitioner followed e,erything dictated to him by the persons aro$nd him +e is insec$re" wea) and g$llible" has no sense of his identity as a person" has no cohesi,e self to spea) of" and has no goals and clear direction in life As for the respondent" her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder ma)es her $nable to ass$me the essential marital obligations on acco$nt for her disregard in the rights of others" her ab$se" mistreatment and control of others witho$t remorse" and her tendency to blame others -oreo,er" as shown in this case" respondent is imp$lsi,e and domineering. she had no 7$alms in manip$lating petitioner with her threats of blac)mail and of committing s$icide ;oth parties being afflicted with gra,e" se,ere and inc$rable psychological incapacity" the precipito$s marriage that they contracted on April 1<" &''( is th$s" declared n$ll and ,oid