G.R. No. 259322 - Nellie Y. Chan Tee Ten vs. Willy Q. Tee Ten and Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 259322)

Origins of the Family Case and Material Allegations

The record showed that on October 28, 2003, Willy instituted in the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Nellie and for the dissolution of their property regime. Willy later filed an Amended Petition on December 30, 2003, alleging that they married on January 22, 1995 without any ante nuptial agreement, such that their property relations were governed by the regime of absolute community of property. Willy alleged that, even before marriage, Nellie’s psychological incapacity was already manifested by a domineering attitude and by lazy and poor study habits rooted in an overindulgent childhood within a previously wealthy pathogenic family environment. After marriage, Willy claimed the incapacity became more apparent through controlling demands about his whereabouts, arrogant behavior toward his mother, an excessive sense of entitlement, irrational insistence of an incestuous relationship between Willy and his mother, verbal abuse toward Willy when he brought their children to his family, physical abuse when he tried to take their daughter out, and attempts to alienate their son from Willy’s paternal grandmother.

Willy further alleged that due to escalating tensions he started sleeping in his office, while Nellie and the children moved to a condominium unit in Pioneer Highlands in October 2002. He claimed he followed to Pioneer Highlands in an attempt to salvage the marriage, but failed. He also alleged psychological abuse of their children, including physical attacks in the presence of children, exclusion of Willy’s relatives from the children’s events except one cousin, teaching the children to say bad things about Willy’s mother, making it difficult for Willy to take the children to his family, and secretly taking the children from Willy’s mother’s house without notice. Willy also alleged that Nellie entered his place of employment without his consent and forcibly took documents, records, and other valuable articles through intimidation.

The Psychological Report and Nellie’s Counter-Defense

Willy relied on a Psychological Assessment Report prepared by Dr. Natividad A. Dayan (“Dr. Dayan”), a clinical psychologist, stating that Nellie suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with paranoid features. Dr. Dayan concluded that Nellie’s psychological incapacity was grave, incurable, and had antecedents, and she recommended the termination of the marriage.

Nellie opposed the petition. She asserted that Willy had abused their children, including sexually, and that in times of disagreement Willy also physically and verbally abused her. She questioned the reliability of Dr. Dayan’s report on the ground that it was based only on Willy’s clinical interview and psychological tests, together with collateral interviews of witnesses whom she described as biased against her. The CA and RTC treated the psychological evidence as central to the determination of incapacity under Article 36.

RTC Decision and Resolution

In its Decision dated November 3, 2016, the RTC granted Willy’s petition and declared the parties’ marriage void under Article 36. Nellie moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in its Order dated May 4, 2017 for lack of merit. Nellie then appealed to the CA through an ordinary appeal.

Appellate Ruling: The CA’s Affirmation of Nullity

The CA affirmed the RTC in toto. It held that first, the testimony of Dr. Dayan, together with Willy’s own accounts and the testimonies of his witnesses—Jocelyn P. Arches, a common friend; Therese Tee, his cousin-in-law; and Julieta Tobias, a social worker—sufficiently proved that Nellie was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations. Second, the CA ruled that the psychological report retained probative value even though Dr. Dayan did not personally examine Nellie, emphasizing that Nellie refused to undergo personal examination in the first place. Third, the CA held that Willy sufficiently proved juridical antecedence, incurability, and the severity of Nellie’s psychological incapacity, concluding that it existed prior to marriage and continued to exist.

The CA denied Nellie’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated December 13, 2021.

Grounds Raised in Nellie’s Petition for Review

Before the Supreme Court, Nellie argued that (one) the CA erred in upholding the nullity based on Dr. Dayan’s psychological report despite Nellie’s lack of personal examination; (two) the CA disregarded Nellie’s narration of Willy’s alleged physical, sexual, emotional, financial, and psychological abuse, and it erred by not finding that Willy’s conduct amounted to contracting marriage in bad faith; (three) assuming the marriage was void, the CA erroneously found that Willy was not the psychologically incapacitated spouse; and (four) the amount of support pendente lite should be increased from PHP 70,000.00 to PHP 300,000.00, effective until dissolution of the property regime, because Willy allegedly had grown in financial stature since the RTC ordered support payment in the Order dated June 17, 2013. Nellie prayed for the dismissal of Willy’s petition, and in the alternative, if the marriage was declared void, she sought a finding that Willy was the psychologically incapacitated spouse who married in bad faith, with forfeiture of his share in favor of their children under Article 147 of the Family Code.

The Court’s Jurisdictional Framing and the Parties’ Positions on Review

The Supreme Court treated the principal issue as whether the lower courts correctly declared the marriage void due to Nellie’s psychological incapacity under Article 36. The OSG, representing the Republic, maintained in its Comment that the petition mainly raised factual matters not reviewable in a Rule 45 proceeding, especially since the RTC and CA were consistent. It also argued that the CA correctly gave credence to the psychological report even without direct interview by Dr. Dayan.

Willy, in his Comment/Opposition, asserted that the petition merely rehashed factual issues already resolved by the lower courts; that the psychological incapacity was sufficiently established through Dr. Dayan’s report and corroborating testimony; and that there was no basis to increase support pendente lite because Willy had continued to provide for the children in addition to the monthly PHP 70,000.00 judicially mandated support and because the children were already of majority age with direct access to him.

The Supreme Court’s Standard of Review Under Rule 45

The Supreme Court held that Nellie’s assignments of error regarding psychological incapacity, alleged psychological incapacity of Willy and bad faith, the proper amount of support pendente lite, and the liquidation, partition, and distribution of property were factual in nature. It reiterated that in a Rule 45 petition, its jurisdiction was limited to reviewing errors of law, and it did not entertain factual issues. The Court acknowledged that the rule admitted exceptions but found none applicable.

Doctrinal Framework for Psychological Incapacity Under Article 36

The Court then addressed the substantive requirements under Article 36 as expounded in Tan-Andal v. Andal. It stated that psychological incapacity must be grave enough to cause inability to perform essential marital obligations, not mere refusal, neglect, or difficulty. It must also show juridical antecedence, meaning the incapacity existed prior to or at the time of marriage, even if it manifested later. Finally, it must establish legal concept of incurability, meaning the party persistently fails, due to the incapacity, to comply with essential marital obligations.

The Court emphasized that the quantum of proof required was clear and convincing evidence, defined as more than preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. It further held that psychological incapacity need not be proven through expert opinion, since it was not an illness that required medical or clinical identification. Accordingly, psychological evaluation was not indispensable even when expert opinion was offered, as long as the totality of evidence established psychological incapacity.

Treatment of the Psychological Report Without Personal Examination

The Court found no legal consequence in the fact that Dr. Dayan’s report was based on Willy’s clinical interview, standardized tests administered on Willy, and collateral interviews, since Nellie refused personal examination. It reasoned that Nellie’s refusal prevented an automatic invalidation of the report on the ground of bias. The Court recognized that personal examination would have been ideal, but in cases of refusal it regarded as an accepted practice in psychiatry that a psychiatric history could be based on collateral information from sources aside from the person evaluated. The Court also noted that Nellie’s own psychologist, Dr. Adamos, opined that she was not incapacitated, but he admitted that Nellie withheld pertinent information that could have affected his findings. The Court viewed this as compromising both Dr. Adamos’s conclusions and Nellie’s credibility.

Findings on Nellie’s Psychological Incapacity

After considering the evidence, the Court held that the totality of evidence showed that Nellie was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations to Willy. The Court reiterated that essential marital obligations include those under Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code on spousal relations, as well as those under Articles 220, 221, and 225 on the effects of parental authority. It identified the duty to live together, observe mutual love, respect, fidelity, and render mutual help and support as the most basic obligation.

The Court found sufficient proof that Nellie suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with paranoid features based on accounts of Willy and other witnesses, corroborated by Dr. Dayan’s psychological

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 259322)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Nellie Y. Chan Tee Ten filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to assail the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated May 4, 2021 and CA Resolution dated December 13, 2021.
The CA affirmed in toto the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 261, Pasig City Decision dated November 3, 2016 and RTC Order dated May 4, 2017.
The RTC declared Nellie’s marriage to Willy Q. Tee Ten void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.
The RTC denied Nellie’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
The Court later impleaded the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as respondent due to the nature of the action.
The case reached the Supreme Court on certiorari, with the principal challenge directed at the conformity of the findings on psychological incapacity with controlling doctrine.
The Court disposed of the petition by denying it for lack of merit and affirming the CA, while remanding specified matters for further proceedings.

Key Factual Allegations

Willy instituted a petition in the RTC on October 28, 2003 for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Nellie, and for dissolution of their property regime.
Willy filed an Amended Petition on December 30, 2003, alleging that the spouses married on January 22, 1995 and had no ante nuptial agreement, making absolute community of property the operative property regime.
Willy alleged pre-marital indicators of Nellie’s psychological incapacity, including domineering attitude and lazy, poor study habits allegedly rooted in her childhood experiences.
Willy alleged that after marriage Nellie remained domineering and controlling, demanded updates on his whereabouts, and demonstrated arrogance toward Willy’s mother with a pervasive sense of entitlement.
Willy alleged that Nellie insisted irrationally that he had an incestuous relationship with his mother.
Willy narrated verbal abuse toward him when he brought their children to his family, and alleged physical abuse when he attempted to take their daughter out of the house.
Willy alleged that Nellie attempted to alienate their son from paternal relatives, including conduct directed at the son’s relationship with his paternal grandmother.
Willy alleged that he began sleeping in his office because of the family tensions and the conduct attributed to Nellie.
Willy alleged that, in an effort to save the marriage, he followed Nellie and the children to a condominium unit in Pioneer Highlands beginning October 2002, but the effort failed.
Willy alleged that Nellie psychologically abused the children through acts such as physical attacks in the children’s presence, exclusion of his relatives from the son’s seventh birthday, teaching the children disparaging remarks about his mother, and obstruction of visitation rights.
Willy alleged that Nellie forcibly took the children from Willy’s mother’s residence without informing others, and that without his consent Nellie entered his place of employment and forcibly took documents and valuable articles.
Based on the Psychological Assessment Report of Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, Willy alleged that Nellie suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with paranoid features and that her incapacity was grave, incurable, and present before marriage.
Nellie countered that Willy abused their children, including that the abuse was also sexual, and that Willy likewise physically and verbally abused her.
Nellie challenged the reliability of Dr. Dayan’s report by asserting it was based solely on Willy’s interview and collateral witnesses alleged to be biased.
Nellie argued that the psychologist never personally examined her.
In the Court’s appreciation, the RTC and CA relied not only on Willy’s account but also on testimonial corroboration and the psychological report, leading to a finding that Nellie had psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations.

RTC Findings and Basis

The RTC granted Willy’s petition and declared the marriage void under Article 36.
The RTC found Willy’s testimony to be undisputed and corroborated by Jocelyn P. Arches, a third-party witness, and supported by Dr. Dayan’s psychological evaluation and subsequent testimony.
The RTC held that Jocelyn corroborated behavioral manifestations attributed to Nellie, including alleged fantasizing that Willy had an incestuous relationship with his mother.
The RTC found that Juliet Tobias, a court social worker, corroborated Willy’s claims regarding Nellie’s domineering and controlling character.
The RTC noted that Winona Nadine Tee Ten, Nellie’s daughter and a witness for Nellie, testified to the effect that Nellie disregarded a hold-departure order issued by the court by leaving the country without securing permission despite the prohibition.
The RTC found clear indications that the parties’ children were allegedly “brainwashed” by Nellie to make them hate Willy, based on perceived behavioral changes during supervised visitation under Tobias.
The RTC treated the alleged manipulation of interpersonal relations as a behavioral manifestation compatible with a narcissistic personality attribution.
The RTC adopted Dr. Dayan’s clinical framing that Nellie’s narcissistic personality manifested in a grandiose sense of self, continued controlling behavior, insistence on her way, and demands that Willy disclose his whereabouts.
The RTC adopted findings that Nellie displayed arrogance and haughtiness toward Willy’s mother, with a strained relationship and resentment.
The RTC adopted findings of excessive entitlement, manifested by expectations of being treated well and ready complaint when others did not comply.
The RTC held that the root cause of Nellie’s psychological incapacity traced to overindulgence and over pampering during childhood, predating the marriage.
The RTC concluded that the incapacity was severe and pervasive, affecting all areas of Nellie’s life and rendering her unable to perform essential marital obligations to Willy.

CA Review and Rationale

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto.
The CA held that Dr. Dayan’s testimony and the personal accounts of Willy and supporting witnesses—Jocelyn, Therese Tee (as referenced in the records), Julieta Tobias, and other witnesses—sufficiently proved Nellie’s psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations.
The CA ruled that the psycholo