NELLIE Y. CHAN TEE TEN, PETITIONER, VS. WILLY Q. TEE TEN AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 259322
- Promulgated: 2025-08-06
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Willy Q. Tee Ten (Willy) filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Nellie Y. Chan Tee Ten (Nellie) and the dissolution of their property regime, alleging Nellie's psychological incapacity. Willy claimed that Nellie exhibited domineering, controlling, arrogant, haughty, and entitled behavior, including making irrational accusations about his relationship with his mother, verbally and physically abusing him, and attempting to alienate their children from his family. A psychologist, Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, assessed Nellie with Narcissistic Personality Disorder with paranoid features, concluding that her psychological incapacity was grave, incurable, and had antecedents. Nellie refused to undergo a personal examination by Dr. Dayan. In her defense, Nellie accused Willy of abuse and questioned the reliability of Dr. Dayan's report, arguing it was based solely on Willy's account and biased witnesses. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Willy's petition, declaring the marriage void due to Nellie's psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in toto. Nellie appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the CA erred in upholding the nullity without her personal examination by Dr. Dayan, disregarding her claims of abuse, not finding Willy psychologically incapacitated, and in the amount of support pendente lite. ## Issues 1. Did the lower courts err in declaring the marriage between Nellie and Willy void on the ground of Nellie's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, particularly given that Nellie was not personally examined by the psychologist? 2. Did the lower courts err in not considering Nellie's allegations of abuse by Willy or in not finding Willy psychologically incapacitated? 3. Should the amount of support pendente lite be increased? 4. What is the proper procedure for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties' properties? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court **denied** the petition, affirming the lower courts' declaration of nullity of marriage. The Court found **no cogent reason to overturn the consistent findings** of the RTC and the CA that Nellie was psychologically incapacitated. It reiterated that the issues raised by Nellie were factual in nature, therefore outside the purview of a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, as its jurisdiction is limited to errors of law. The Court referenced its landmark decision in **Tan-Andal v. Andal** which redefined psychological incapacity, emphasizing that it must be grave, juridically antecedent (existing at or before marriage), and incurable (persisting failure to perform essential marital obligations with respect to a specific partner). The quantum of proof is **clear and convincing evidence**. The Court clarified that **expert opinion is not indispensable** and a personal examination of the incapacitated spouse is not required, especially if the party refuses to participate. Dr. Dayan's psychological report was deemed valid despite Nellie's refusal to be examined, as relying on collateral information is an accepted psychiatric practice. The totality of evidence, including Willy's testimony, corroborating witnesses, and Dr. Dayan's report identifying Nellie's Narcissistic Personality Disorder with paranoid features, sufficiently established that Nellie's psychological incapacity was **grave and legally incurable**, rooted in her childhood and manifesting as a persistent failure to comply with essential marital obligations. **Issue 2:** The Court **found that Nellie's allegations of abuse by Willy or a potential finding of Willy's psychological incapacity do not negate the evidence of Nellie's own psychological incapacity**. The Court noted that even if Willy were declared psychologically incapacitated, the marriage would still be void under Article 36 of the Family Code. **Issue 3:** The Court **remanded the case to the trial court for…