Case Digest (G.R. No. 248569)
Facts:
Ericson C. Cabutaje v. Republic of the Philippines and Romelia A. Cabutaje, G.R. No. 248569, January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ericson C. Cabutaje married private respondent Romelia A. Cabutaje on January 2, 2003; they had one daughter, Keirah, born February 24, 2003. Romelia later went to work overseas (Taiwan, then Hong Kong), remittances became irregular, and the couple experienced prolonged periods apart. Ericson likewise worked abroad; during their separation Romelia allegedly ceased providing sustained financial support, left Keirah in her sister’s custody, and engaged in a romantic relationship with another man.
On August 10, 2012 Ericson filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage (Civil Case No. 33-408-2012) before Branch 33, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ballesteros, Cagayan, alleging psychological incapacity of both spouses under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC (Judge Francisco S. Donato) issued a January 9, 2017 Decision declaring the marriage void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity and awarded custody of the child to Ericson. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for reconsideration; the RTC denied the motion in an Order dated November 20, 2017.
The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 110422). On March 18, 2019 the Court of Appeals (First Division) reversed the RTC, holding the psychological-evaluation report of clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy Tayag unreliable because she had not personally examined Romelia and had based conclusions on interviews with Ericson, a sister, and a mutual friend; the CA therefore found the evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. Ericson’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a July 29, 2019 Resolution.
Ericson filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court contesting the CA’s reve...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving little probative weight to the psychologist’s report because the psychologist did not personally examine the alleged incapacitated spouse?
- Did the evidence satisfy the requisites of psychological incapacity (gravity, incurability, juridical antecedence) under Article 36 of the Family Code so as t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)