Case Summary (G.R. No. 248569)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Marriage: January 2, 2003. Birth of child: February 24, 2003. Petition for declaration of nullity filed: August 10, 2012 (Civil Case No. 33-408-2012, RTC Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan). RTC decision granting nullity: January 9, 2017. RTC order denying OSG reconsideration: November 20, 2017. Court of Appeals decision reversing RTC: March 18, 2019; CA resolution denying reconsideration: July 29, 2019. Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 248569) resulted in the Court’s decision (reported here for purposes of legal basis under the 1987 Constitution).
Factual Summary
The spouses married in Lasam, Cagayan and had a daughter, Keirah. Romelia, urged by Ericson’s mother, sought work abroad and went to Taiwan; remittances became scarce; Ericson likewise went to Taiwan to work. The spouses worked far apart and rarely saw each other, leading to marital deterioration. Romelia became inconsistent in financial support; after a contract ended in Taiwan she returned to the Philippines, fetched their child but subsequently left Keirah with her sister to work in Hong Kong and thereafter ceased providing financial support. Romelia was also found to have engaged in a romantic relationship with another man while married.
Trial Court Findings
The Regional Trial Court granted Ericson’s petition for nullity under Article 36, finding that both spouses had personality disorders developed during early childhood that were deeply embedded in their personalities, thereby preventing performance of essential marital duties. The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio and awarded custody of the child to Ericson.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Rationale
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The CA reasoned that the clinical psychologist’s report (Dr. Tayag) lacked credibility because she did not personally examine Romelia and based conclusions largely on interviews with Ericson, Ericson’s sister, and a mutual friend. The CA further concluded the report was inadequate for failing to identify the root causes of the alleged psychological disorders that would render either spouse psychologically incapacitated under Article 36.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the evidence on record, including the psychological assessment and testimonial evidence, sufficiently established psychological incapacity under Article 36 to warrant a declaration that the marriage is void; and whether the CA correctly reversed the RTC on the ground that the psychologist did not personally examine the respondent-spouse.
Governing Law and Legal Standards
Article 36, Family Code: a marriage is void if, at the time of celebration, a party was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations; burden rests on the plaintiff-spouse to prove psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. Jurisprudential requisites elaborated in case law require demonstration that the incapacity is (1) grave, (2) incurable (in the legal sense), and (3) juridically antecedent (existing at or reasonably likely to have existed at the time of marriage). Precedents cited in the decision (Camacho-Reyes, Tan‑Andal, Candelario, Clavecilla and others) clarify that personal, direct examination of the alleged incapacitated spouse by the expert is not per se mandatory and that evidence may be drawn from the petitioning spouse and other witnesses familiar with the parties’ lives.
Supreme Court’s Analysis Regarding Expert Evidence
The Supreme Court emphasized that expert opinion is probative but not indispensable and that expert conclusions based on collateral information—such as interviews with the spouse, relatives, or friends—may be accorded weight. The Court noted the distinctive role of trial courts in observing witness demeanor and evaluating credibility. It accepted that Dr. Tayag, a qualified clinical psychologist, based her report on interviews with Ericson, his sister, and Zunega (a friend who knew Romelia prior to marriage), and that her findings were not controverted by contrary expert evidence. The Court rejected the CA’s per se rule discounting an expert’s report when the expert did not personally examine the subject spouse.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Gravity and Incurability
The Court found that Romelia’s behaviors—persistent failure to provide financial support, abandonment of parental responsibilities by leaving the child in her sister’s custody, and engagement in extramarital relations—transcend mere character faults, immaturity, or occasional moral lapses. Taken together with Dr. Tayag’s diagnosis of histrionic personality disorder with antisocial features (rooted in childhood experiences), the Court concluded the incapacity was grave and legally incurable because it reflected enduring personality structures incompatible with the essential obligations of marriage.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Juridical Antecedence
Addressing juridical antecedence, the Court held that it is legally sufficient to demonstrate that, in all reasonable likelihood, the psychological condition already existed at the time of marriage. The Court relied on Dr. Tayag’s opinion that Romelia’s personality disorder began developing in early life and persisted into adulthood and marital life, and on testimonial evidence (notably Zunega’s account of a “whirlwind courtship” and that the parties were forced to marry because of pregnancy) that supported the existence of behavioral patterns traceable to pre-marital formation. The Court viewed the “lived conjugal life” and the totality of evidence as sufficient to establish juridical antecedence in this case.
Supreme Court’s Holding and Disposition
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals’ March 18, 2019 Decision and its July 29, 2019 Resolution, and declared the marriage between Ericson and Romelia void on the ground of Romelia’s psychological incapacity under Article 36. The Court
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 248569)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Ericson C. Cabutaje assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated March 18, 2019 and Resolution dated July 29, 2019 in CA-G.R. CV No. 110422, which reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision (Jan. 9, 2017) and Order (Nov. 20, 2017) of Branch 33, RTC, Ballesteros, Cagayan, that had declared the marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
- Case docketed originally before Branch 33, RTC of Ballesteros, Cagayan as Civil Case No. 33-408-2012; petition for nullity filed on August 10, 2012.
- RTC rendered judgment granting petitioner’s petition and declaring the marriage void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code; custody of the child awarded to petitioner.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, which was denied by the RTC Order dated November 20, 2017.
- On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC, finding insufficiency of evidence to establish psychological incapacity; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the CA was denied in the July 29, 2019 Resolution.
- The Supreme Court, Third Division, granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari and, after judicial deliberation, reversed the CA and set aside its Decision and Resolution, declaring the marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity (G.R. No. 248569, January 15, 2025).
Parties and Basic Facts
- Petitioner: Ericson C. Cabutaje (Ericson).
- Private respondent: Romelia A. Cabutaje (Romelia).
- Other respondent: Republic of the Philippines (through the OSG) which litigated on Romelia’s behalf.
- Marriage solemnized in Lasam, Cagayan on January 2, 2003.
- Child: Keirah Angela Cabutaje, born February 24, 2003.
- Early marital history: Romelia urged by Ericson’s mother to work abroad; Romelia went to Taiwan leaving Ericson to care for Keirah; remittances initially sent but later became scarce prompting Ericson to also go to Taiwan.
- While both worked in Taiwan their workplaces were far apart and they rarely met; marriage deteriorated; Romelia became inconsistent in providing financial support.
- After Romelia’s contract ended in Taiwan she returned to the Philippines, stayed with her parents, fetched Keirah from in‑laws but later left Keirah in the custody of her sister when she left for Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper; since then Romelia allegedly ceased providing financial support and engaged in another romantic relationship.
Relief Sought and Trial Court Disposition
- Relief sought: declaration that the marriage is void ab initio on ground of psychological incapacity of both spouses under Article 36 of the Family Code.
- RTC (Judge Francisco S. Donato) found both spouses had entrenched personality disorders developed in early childhood that prevented performance of essential marital duties; granted petition and declared marriage null and void ab initio; awarded custody of Keirah to Ericson.
Appellate Court Rationale (Court of Appeals)
- CA reversed the RTC for purported insufficiency of evidence to prove psychological incapacity.
- Primary criticisms:
- Dr. Nedy Tayag’s psychological report could not be given credence because Dr. Tayag did not personally examine Romelia and based conclusions only on interviews with Ericson, Ericson’s sister Myra, and mutual friend Cherry Christine Zunega.
- Dr. Tayag allegedly failed to identify the root causes of both spouses’ psychological disorders which would render them psychologically incapacitated to perform marital obligations.
- CA concluded the totality of evidence failed to sufficiently prove Romelia’s psychological incapacity.
Petition for Review: Petitioner’s Contentions
- Petitioner argued the CA erred in reversing the RTC; the RTC’s findings of psychological incapacity were supported by factual and clinical evidence.
- Asserts Dr. Tayag’s report sufficiently established his own narcissistic personality disorder preventing him from meeting essential marital obligations.
- Invoked Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes-Reyes and Marcos v. Marcos to contend that personal examination of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is not a mandatory requirement for Article 36 nullity.
- Maintained RTC decision bolstered by Dr. Tayag’s findings which identified specific disorders for both spouses and characterized them as grave, serious, and incurable.
- Emphasized Romelia’s abandonment of husband and daughter, failure to support, and extramarital relationship as demonstrating lack of understanding of essential marital obligations.
Republic / OSG’s Contentions (Respondent)
- OSG argued petitioner failed to establish psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence.
- Urged that Dr. Tayag’s findings are unreliable because she did not personally examine Romelia and relied on interviews with petitioner, petitioner’s sister, and a mutual friend.
- Acknowledged Romelia may have shown emotional immaturity, infidelity, and irresponsibility, but argued these traits do not necessarily render a marriage void under Article 36.
Governing Law: Article 36 and Burden of Proof
- Article 36, Family Code of the Philippines (text reproduced in ponencia): marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations shall be void even if incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization.
- Burden: plaintiff-spouse must prove psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence.
- Requisites articulated in case law: psychological incapacity must be grave, incurable (in legal sense), and juridically antecedent to the celebration of marriage.
Jurisprudential Standards and Authorities Cited
- Candelario v. Candelario: elaboration on three requisites — gravity, incurability (legal sense: incompatibility of personality structures leading to inevitable breakdown), juridical antecedence (existence prior to marriage) — cited for interpretive framework.
- Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes-Reyes and Tan-Andal v. Andal: authority affirming that direct and personal examination of the alleged incapacitated spouse is not an absolute and indispensable requirement for expert opinion to be considered; expert may form opinion using information from one party or other collateral sources.
- Tan-Andal v. Andal: further guidance on proof from ordinary witnesses and the value of expert testimony; courts must examine totality of evidence case-by-case.
- Clavecilla v. Clavecilla: standard for demonstration of juridical antecedence based on reasonable likelihood that incapacity already existed at time of marriage; inclusion of “lived conjugal life” as relevant evidence.
- Additional cases cited for supporting propositions: Elizabeth A. Alberto v. Jose Luis R. Alberto; Cayabyab-Navarrosa v. Navarrosa; Georfo v. Republic; Estella v. Perez; Republic v. Calingo; Rep. of the Phils. v. Mola Cruz — as they relate to evidentiary weight, expert testimony, and preservation vs. dissolution of marriage.
Expert Evidence: Dr. Nedy Tayag (Clinical Psychologist)
- Credentials and qualifications provided in the record:
- B.A. in Psychology (Centro Escolar University).
- M.A. in Psychology (Manuel L. Quezon University).
- Chief Clinical Psychologist for HLT Psychiatric and Psychological Se