G.R. No. 161793 February 13, 2009 EDWARD KENNETH NGO TE, Petitioner, vs.

ROWENA ONG GUTIERREZ YU-TE, Respondent, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor. DECISION NACHURA, J.: FACTS: For the resolution of the Court is a petition for review assailing the August 5, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the RTC and Resolution denying the motion for the reconsideration of the challenged decision on January 19, 2004 Petitioner Edward Kenneth Ngo met respondent Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te in college. Edward courted Rowena January 1996, petitioner a sophomore and respondent a freshman. Key facts: In March 1996, or around three months after their first meeting, Rowena asked Edward that they elope, Edward refused at first but later agreed. They left Manila and sailed to Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money for 80,0000 and she, purchasing the boat ticket. April 1996, they decided to go back and live at Rowenas Uncles house and Edward back to his parents home. Key facts: As his family was abroad, and Rowena kept on telephoning him, threatening him that she would commit suicide, Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at her uncles place. Key facts: On April 23, 1996, Rowenas uncle brought the two to a court to get married. He was then 25 years old, and she, 20. The two then continued to stay at her uncles place where Edward was treate d like a prisonerhe was not allowed to go out unaccompanied. Key facts: Edward was told by his father that he would be disinherited, and insisted that he must go home. After a month, Edward escaped from the house of Rowenas uncle, and stayed with his parents. His family then hid him from Rowena and her family

Key facts: In June 1996, Edwards parents wanted them to stay at their house but

Rowena refused and demanded that they have a separate abode. In June 1996, she said that it was better for them to live separate lives and they then parted ways. January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latters psychological incapacity. As Rowena did not file an answer, the trial court, on July 11, 2000, ordered the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to investigate whether there was collusion between the parties. On August 23, 2000, the OCP submitted an investigation report stating that it could not determine if there was collusion between the parties; thus, it recommended trial on the merits. Key facts: The clinical psychologist who examined petitioner found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Key facts: July 30, 2001, RTC 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.17 The Republic, represented by the OSG, timely filed its notice of appeal. Key facts: On review, the appellate court, in the assailed August 5, 2003 Decision n CA-G.R. CV No. 71867, reversed and set aside the trial courts ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent. The CA later denied petitioners motion for reconsideration in the likewise assailed January 19, 2004 Resolution. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed before this Court the instant petition for review on certiorari. On June 15, 2005, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda

ISSUE: The Court now resolves the singular issue of whether, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is null and void. 31 RULING: -key 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. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioners behavioral pattern falls under the

classification of dependent personality disorder, and respondents, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder. Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Psychological incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do with consent; it refers to obligations attendant to marriage. Petitioner being afflicted with dependent personality disorder that hinders him from assuming marital obligations and respondent being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder makes her unable to assume the same. Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage which they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void. Petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. Decision of RTC reinstated. SO ORDERED.