Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Te vs. Te GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009

    Uploaded by

    RR F
    - Edward Te and Rowena Te met in college in 1996 and decided to elope together that year, with Edward providing money for travel and Rowena buying the boat ticket. - They married without a license after returning to Manila but separated after just one month of marriage, with Edward escaping Rowena's house where he was prohibited from leaving alone and threatened. - In 2000, Edward filed for annulment of the marriage on the grounds of Rowena's psychological incapacity, and a psychologist found both parties had personality disorders making them psychologically incapacitated for marriage. - The court declared their six-month marriage null and void due to the grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity of both parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Te vs. Te GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009

    Uploaded by

    RR F
    57 views3 pages
    - Edward Te and Rowena Te met in college in 1996 and decided to elope together that year, with Edward providing money for travel and Rowena buying the boat ticket. - They married without a license after returning to Manila but separated after just one month of marriage, with Edward escaping Rowena's house where he was prohibited from leaving alone and threatened. - In 2000, Edward filed for annulment of the marriage on the grounds of Rowena's psychological incapacity, and a psychologist found both parties had personality disorders making them psychologically incapacitated for marriage. - The court declared their six-month marriage null and void due to the grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity of both parties.

    Original Description:

    egwe

    Original Title

    case92

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Edward Te and Rowena Te met in college in 1996 and decided to elope together that year, with Edward providing money for travel and Rowena buying the boat ticket. - They married without a license after returning to Manila but separated after just one month of marriage, with Edward escaping Rowena's house where he was prohibited from leaving alone and threatened. - In 2000, Edward filed for annulment of the marriage on the grounds of Rowena's psychological incapacity, and a psychologist found both parties had personality disorders making them psychologically incapacitated for marriage. - The court declared their six-month marriage null and void due to the grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity of both parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views3 pages

    Te vs. Te GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009

    Uploaded by

    RR F
    - Edward Te and Rowena Te met in college in 1996 and decided to elope together that year, with Edward providing money for travel and Rowena buying the boat ticket. - They married without a license after returning to Manila but separated after just one month of marriage, with Edward escaping Rowena's house where he was prohibited from leaving alone and threatened. - In 2000, Edward filed for annulment of the marriage on the grounds of Rowena's psychological incapacity, and a psychologist found both parties had personality disorders making them psychologically incapacitated for marriage. - The court declared their six-month marriage null and void due to the grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity of both parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Tevs.

    Te
    GRNo.161793,February13,2009

    FACTS:
    PetitionerEdwardTefirstmetrespondentRowenaTeinagathering
    organizedbytheFilipinoChineseassociationintheircollege.Initially,
    hewasattractedtoRowenasclosefriendbut,asthelatteralreadyhad
    aboyfriend,theyoungmandecidedtocourtRowena,whichhappened
    inJanuary1996.ItwasRowenawhoaskedthattheyelopebutEdward
    refusedbickeringthathewasyoungandjobless.Herpersistence,
    however,madehimrelent.TheyleftManilaandsailedtoCebuthat
    month;he,providingtheirtravelmoneyofP80,000andshe,purchasing
    theboatticket.
    TheydecidedtogobacktoManilainApril1996.Rowenaproceededto
    heruncleshouseandEdwardtohisparentshome.Eventuallytheygot
    marriedbutwithoutamarriagelicense.Edwardwasprohibitedfrom
    gettingoutofthehouseunaccompaniedandwasthreatenedbyRowena
    andheruncle.Afteramonth,Edwardescapedfromthehouse,and
    stayedwithhisparents.Edwardsparentswantedthemtostayattheir
    housebutRowenarefusedanddemandedthattheyhaveaseparate
    abode.InJune1996,shesaidthatitwasbetterforthemtolive
    separatelivesandtheythenpartedways.
    After four years in January 2000, Edward filed a petition for the

    annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latters


    psychologicalincapacity.
    ISSUE:Whetherthemarriagecontractedisvoidonthegroundof
    psychologicalincapacity.
    HELD:
    Thepartieswhirlwindrelationshiplastedmoreorlesssixmonths.
    TheymetinJanuary1996,elopedinMarch,exchangedmaritalvowsin
    May,andpartedwaysinJune.Thepsychologistwhoprovidedexpert
    testimonyfoundbothpartiespsychologicallyincapacitated.Petitioners
    behavioralpatternfallsundertheclassificationofdependent
    personalitydisorder,andrespondents,thatofthenarcissisticand
    antisocialpersonalitydisorder
    Thereisnorequirementthatthepersontobedeclaredpsychologically
    incapacitatedbepersonallyexaminedbyaphysician,ifthetotalityof
    evidencepresentedisenoughtosustainafindingofpsychological
    incapacity.Verily,theevidencemustshowalink,medicalorthelike,
    betweentheactsthatmanifestpsychologicalincapacityandthe
    psychologicaldisorderitself.
    Thepresentationofexpertproofpresupposesathoroughandindepth
    assessmentofthepartiesbythepsychologistorexpert,foraconclusive
    diagnosisofagrave,severeandincurablepresenceofpsychological
    incapacity.

    Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality disorder,


    cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together,
    observinglove,respectandfidelityandrenderinghelpandsupport,for
    heisunabletomakeeverydaydecisionswithoutadvicefromothers,
    andallowsotherstomakemostofhisimportantdecisions(suchas
    where to live). As clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed
    everythingdictatedtohimbythepersonsaroundhim.Heisinsecure,
    weakandgullible, has no sense ofhis identity as a person, has no
    cohesiveselftospeakof,andhasnogoalsandcleardirectioninlife.
    Asfortherespondent,herbeingafflictedwithantisocialpersonality
    disordermakesherunabletoassumetheessentialmaritalobligations
    on account for her disregard in the rights of others, her abuse,
    mistreatmentandcontrolofotherswithoutremorse,andhertendency
    to blame others. Moreover, as shown in this case, respondent is
    impulsive and domineering; she had no qualms in manipulating
    petitionerwithherthreatsofblackmailandofcommittingsuicide.
    Bothpartiesbeingafflictedwithgrave,severeandincurable
    psychologicalincapacity,theprecipitousmarriagethattheycontracted
    onApril23,1996isthus,declarednullandvoid.

    You might also like