ERICSON C. CABUTAJE, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ROMELIA A. CABUTAJE, RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 248569
- Promulgated: 2025-01-15
- Ponente: DIMAAMPAO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Petitioner Ericson C. Cabutaje married respondent Romelia A. Cabutaje on January 2, 2003, and they had a daughter. Romelia went to Taiwan for work, initially sending remittances which later became scarce, prompting Ericson to also work in Taiwan. The marriage deteriorated, and Romelia stopped providing financial support and had another romantic relationship. Romelia left their daughter, Keirah, in the custody of her sister when she went to Hongkong for work. Ericson filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity for both parties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, finding that the personality disorders of both Ericson and Romelia were deeply embedded and prevented them from fulfilling marital duties. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed, and the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, finding the evidence insufficient. The CA reasoned that Dr. Nedy Tayag's psychological report was not credible because Romelia was not personally examined, and the report failed to identify the root causes of their alleged disorders. Ericson filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC's declaration of nullity of marriage based on the purported insufficiency of evidence for Romelia's psychological incapacity? 2. Is a direct and personal examination of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated an indispensable requirement for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code? 3. Was Romelia A. Cabutaje psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court **grants** the Petition, finding that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's declaration of nullity of Ericson's marriage with Romelia. **Issue 2:** The Court ruled that direct and personal examination of an expert regarding either of the spouses' psychological incapacity **is not an absolute and indispensable requirement**. Referencing **Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes-Reyes** and **Tan-Andal v. Andal**, the Court reiterated that information obtained from one party to the marriage or from other sources, such as relatives, close friends, or family doctors/lawyers, may suffice for an expert's opinion. The Court emphasized that courts should judiciously assess each Article 36 petition on a case-to-case basis, including the psychological report, even if only one spouse was interviewed. **Issue 3:** The Court found that **Romelia A. Cabutaje was psychologically incapacitated** to comply with her essential marital obligations. The Court rejected Ericson's argument that his narcissistic personality disorder impaired his ability but affirmed Romelia's incapacity. The Court noted that Dr. Tayag's report, based on interviews with Ericson, his sister, and a mutual friend (Zunega), provided sufficient basis for her findings. Dr. Tayag identified Romelia's personality structure as consistent with **histrionic personality disorder with anti-social features**, rooted in childhood and carried into adulthood. Romelia's psychological incapacity was deemed **grave**, as evidenced by her consistent failure to provide financial support, abandonment of her daughter, and engagement in extramarital relations, which are not merely mild characterological peculiarities. The incapacity was deemed **incurable**, given the deeply embedded nature of her personality disorder. For **juridical antecedence**, the Court clarified that while it is difficult to determine its existence at the exact time of marriage, it is sufficient that the incapacity, in all reasonable likelihood, already existed then. The concept of juridical antecedence includes "lived conjugal life," as incapacity can become manifest only after solemnization. Dr. Tayag's report traced Romelia's behavior to her childhood, where she was spoiled, contributing to her…
Keywords
Article 36 Family Code, Articles 68 to 71 Family Code, Tan-Andal v. Andal doctrine, Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes-Reyes doctrine, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Psychological Incapacity, Petition for Review on Certiorari, Null and Void ab initio, Grave, Incurable, and Juridically Antecedent, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Preponderance of Evidence, Expert Witness, Collateral Information, Probative Value, Petition Granted, Decision Reversed and Set Aside, Marriage Declared Void, psychological, marriage