Ting v.

Velez-Ting (March 31, 2009)

FACTS
7/26/1975: Petitioner Benjamin Ting married respondent Carmen Velez-Ting (whom he met in
1972 in medical school).
They resided at Carmens family home, and Benjamin would later work for Velez Hospital owned
by Carmens family.
After 18 years of marriage, Carmen filed a petition for declaration of nullity based on Article 36
of the Family Code, citing that Benjamin was a habitual drunkard and a gambler, and that he
would refuse to give financial support to his family.
Lower court declared marriage null and void, referring to Dr. Onates findings that Benjamin was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential obligations of marriage. Said decision was
sustained by the Court of Appeals although having initially reversed it.
ISSUE
Whether or not the husband was psychologically incapacitated.
RESOLUTION
NO, Benjamin is not psychologically incapacitated. As such, Carmens petition is denied and their
marriage cannot be nullified.
There is no abandonment of the doctrine of Molina (which outlined 8 guidelines for interpretation
and application of FC Article 6). It is merely suggested that these stringent requirements be
relaxed, particularly on the guideline on expert opinions which are not in all cases available to the
parties. Also, the need for expert opinion is not a sine qua non condition in granting petitions for
nullifying marriages.
In this case, since the parties have full capacity to avail of expert opinions, then these should be
presented and accordingly weighed in court.
Carmen failed to prove that petitioners defects were present at the time of the celebration of their
marriage. Prior to their marriage, she already knew that he would occasionally drink and gamble,
but such is insufficient to prove any pre-existing psychological defect that is incurable.
Evaluation of two psychiatrists do not strengthen respondents allegations. Dr. Onate testifies that
petitioners behavior is a positive indication of a personality disorder while Dr. Obra maintained
that there is nothing wrong with his personality. Greater weight should be afforded to the latters
testimony since it had additionally considered a report by a psychiatrist in South Africa who
personally examined Benjamin, as well as Obras interview with his brothers.
Presumption always favors validity of the marriage. In this case, the evidence of psychological
incapacity is inadequate to declare Benjamin psychologically incapacitated.