GR. NO. 161793, February 13, 2009 Edward Kenneth Ngo Te Vs Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te
GR. NO. 161793, February 13, 2009 Edward Kenneth Ngo Te Vs Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te
GR. NO. 161793, February 13, 2009 Edward Kenneth Ngo Te Vs Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te
“In dissolving 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 in that sacred bond. It may be
stressed that the infliction of physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug
dependence or addiction, and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic
personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the
first place, as the same is void from the very beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration
of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.”
“It would be of utmost cruelty for this Court to decree that petitioner should remain married to
respondent. After she had exerted efforts to save their marriage and their family, respondent
simply refused to believe that there was anything wrong in their marriage. This shows that
respondent truly could not comprehend and perform his marital obligations. This fact is
persuasive enough for this Court to believe that respondent mental illness is incurable.”
“Justice Sempio-Dy cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding
Judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (Branch 1),
who opines that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party
would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted
in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved.”
“Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of
the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law
has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability of the spouse to
have sexual relations with the other.”