Te vs. Te

Eduard Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te

G.R. No. 161793

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. After almost four years, or on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and the respondent’s, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder.

The trial court, on July 30, 2001, 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. On review, the appellate court reversed and set aside the trial’s court ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent, for the clinical psychologist did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the information provided by petitioner. Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. In sum, the evidence adduced fell short of the requirements stated in the Molina case needed for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed before the SC the instant petition for review on certiorari. He posited that the trial court declared the marriage void, not only because of respondent’s psychological incapacity, but rather due to both parties’ psychological incapacity. He also pointed out that there is no requirement for the psychologist to personally examine respondent.

ISSUE: Whether, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is null and void?

HELD: The petition for review for certiorari was granted. The decision of the CA was reversed and set aside, and the decision of the trial court was reinstated. Both parties afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage is, thus, declared null and void. For the fulfillment of the obligations of marriage depends on the strength of this interpersonal relationship. A serious incapacity for interpersonal sharing and support is held to impair the relationship and consequently, the ability to fulfill the essential marital obligations.

The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.

In dissolving the 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 that sacred bond. Let it be noted that in Art. 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning.

Francisco vs. Ferrer

ERLINDA FRANCISCO AND JULIANA PAMAONG (petitioners)
vs.
RICARDO FERRER, JR., ANNETTE FERRER, ERNESTO LO AND REBECCA LO (respondents)
G.R. No. 142029
February 28, 2001


FACTS: The petitioners failed to deliver the wedding cake on the wedding day as ordered and paid for. Petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the order slip got lost. The respondents filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, for breach of contract with damages. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs and against Erlinda Francisco who is ordered to pay an amount of P30, 000 for moral damages. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which modified the appealed decision increasing the award of moral damages from thirty thousand (P30,000.00) to two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) and awarded an additional exemplary damages of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are liable for moral and exemplary damages?

RULING: The Court granted the petition and reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. To recover moral and exemplary damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be palpable wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith. The Court found no such fraud or bad faith.

Nevertheless, the Court found the petitioners liable for nominal damages (an amount of P10,000) for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer’s anxiety and need of the hour. “Nominal damages are ‘recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.” Nominal damages may be awarded “to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.”