Cabutaje vs. Republic

The marriage is declared void ab initio on the ground of respondent Romelia A. Cabutaje's psychological incapacity, which was sufficiently established through the totality of evidence, including expert testimony based on collateral interviews and testimonies of witnesses who knew the respondent, without the need for the respondent's direct personal examination.

Ericson Cabutaje and Romelia Cabutaje married in 2003 and had a daughter. To provide for their family, both spouses eventually worked abroad in Taiwan, but their relationship deteriorated due to distance and Romelia's inconsistent financial support. After her contract ended, Romelia returned to the Philippines, took their daughter, but then left the child in her sister's care to work in Hong Kong. She ceased providing financial support and entered into another romantic relationship. These events prompted Ericson to file a petition to have their marriage declared void, alleging that both he and Romelia were psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their essential marital obligations.

• Ericson C. Cabutaje and Romelia A. Cabutaje married on January 2, 2003, and had one daughter, Keirah, born on February 24, 2003.
• Romelia went to work in Taiwan, and while she initially sent money, the remittances became scarce over time.
• Ericson also went to work in Taiwan, but the spouses rarely met, and their marriage soured.
• Romelia returned to the Philippines, fetched their daughter, but left the child in the custody of her sister to work as a domestic helper in Hong Kong.
• Romelia ceased providing financial support for their daughter and had a romantic relationship with another man.
• On August 10, 2012, Ericson filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, claiming both he and Romelia were psychologically incapacitated.
• Clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy Tayag submitted a report based on interviews with Ericson, his sister Myra, and a mutual friend, Cherry Christine Zunega.
• Dr. Tayag diagnosed Romelia with Histrionic Personality Disorder with anti-social features, rooted in her childhood where she was spoiled by lenient parents.
• The psychologist also diagnosed Ericson with narcissistic personality disorder, but the Supreme Court rejected this as a basis for nullity.
• A mutual friend testified that the couple had a "whirlwind courtship" and were "forced to get married" due to Romelia's pregnancy.

• The RTC's finding of psychological incapacity was supported by sufficient factual and clinical evidence provided by Dr. Nedy Tayag.
• Citing jurisprudence, the personal examination of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is not a mandatory requirement for a declaration of nullity.
• The psychologist's report adequately established that Romelia's disorder was grave, serious, and incurable.
• Romelia's abandonment of her family and her disregard for her marital responsibilities are clear manifestations of her psychological incapacity.

• The evidence presented by Ericson was insufficient to establish psychological incapacity.
• Dr. Tayag's findings were unreliable because she did not personally examine Romelia, basing her conclusions only on interviews with Ericson and his witnesses.
• Romelia's behavior, described as emotional immaturity, infidelity, and irresponsibility, does not automatically amount to psychological incapacity that would render the marriage void.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a psychological report based on interviews with the petitioner and other collateral informants, without a personal examination of the respondent, is sufficient to prove psychological incapacity.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the totality of the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that respondent Romelia A. Cabutaje suffers from psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, the psychological report is sufficient. The Court affirmed the doctrine that the personal examination of the alleged incapacitated spouse is not an absolute and indispensable requirement. An expert's opinion may be based on information obtained from one party, relatives, or close friends, as the totality of a spouse's behavior is often best witnessed by the other spouse and those close to the family.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, Romelia A. Cabutaje is psychologically incapacitated. The Court found that her consistent failure to fulfill her marital obligations—specifically, her failure to provide financial support, her withdrawal from her responsibilities as a mother by leaving her child in another's custody, and her engagement in an extramarital affair—were manifestations of a grave and incurable psychological condition. Her diagnosed Histrionic Personality Disorder, rooted in her childhood, was deemed to be juridically antecedent, as it existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during it. The Court concluded that the severance of the marital bond was necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage, which had been lost on Romelia.

• Psychological Incapacity (Article 36, Family Code) — A legal ground for declaring a marriage void, referring to a party's true inability to comprehend and assume the essential marital obligations. The incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. In this case, Romelia's Histrionic Personality Disorder was found to meet these criteria, as manifested by her irresponsible and unfaithful behavior.
• Non-Necessity of Personal Examination — The doctrine that a declaration of psychological incapacity does not require the psychologist or psychiatrist to have personally examined the alleged incapacitated party. The Court applied this by giving probative value to Dr. Tayag's report, which was based on collateral information from the petitioner and other witnesses who had direct knowledge of Romelia's behavior.
• Juridical Antecedence — The requirement that the psychological incapacity must have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even if its manifestations appear only later. The Court applied a liberal interpretation, stating that this can be proven by testimonies about the spouse's environment before marriage and by examining their "lived conjugal life," as the marriage itself is the litmus test of one's psychological makeup.
• Totality of Evidence Rule — The principle that in psychological incapacity cases, the court must base its decision on all the evidence presented—including testimonies of the petitioner, family, and friends, as well as the expert opinion. The Court used this to rule that the combined testimonies and Dr. Tayag's report sufficiently proved Romelia's incapacity.

• Psychological Incapacity (Article 36, Family Code) — A legal ground for declaring a marriage void, referring to a party's true inability to comprehend and assume the essential marital obligations. The incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. In this case, Romelia's Histrionic Personality Disorder was found to meet these criteria, as manifested by her irresponsible and unfaithful behavior.
• Non-Necessity of Personal Examination — The doctrine that a declaration of psychological incapacity does not require the psychologist or psychiatrist to have personally examined the alleged incapacitated party. The Court applied this by giving probative value to Dr. Tayag's report, which was based on collateral information from the petitioner and other witnesses who had direct knowledge of Romelia's behavior.
• Juridical Antecedence — The requirement that the psychological incapacity must have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even if its manifestations appear only later. The Court applied a liberal interpretation, stating that this can be proven by testimonies about the spouse's environment before marriage and by examining their "lived conjugal life," as the marriage itself is the litmus test of one's psychological makeup.
• Totality of Evidence Rule — The principle that in psychological incapacity cases, the court must base its decision on all the evidence presented—including testimonies of the petitioner, family, and friends, as well as the expert opinion. The Court used this to rule that the combined testimonies and Dr. Tayag's report sufficiently proved Romelia's incapacity.

• "As the parties have yet to assume any of the essential marital obligations prior to being married, the Court discerns that the experience of marriage itself is the litmus test of self-realization, reflecting one's true psychological makeup as to whether or not he or she was indeed capable of assuming the essential marital obligations to his or her spouse at the time the marriage was entered into."

• Tan-Andal v. Andal — Referenced as the landmark case that clarified the requirements for psychological incapacity, particularly stressing that personal examination of the respondent is not mandatory and that expert testimony, while not required, is compelling evidence. It also refined the understanding of juridical antecedence.
• Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes-Reyes — Cited to support the petitioner's argument that personal examination of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is not a mandatory requirement.
• Marcos v. Marcos — Also cited to reinforce the principle that personal examination of the respondent is not an indispensable element for a finding of psychological incapacity.
• Clavecilla v. Clavecilla — Cited for its explanation that juridical antecedence can be established if it is shown that the incapacity, in all reasonable likelihood, already existed at the time of the marriage, and that the "lived conjugal life" is a key indicator.
• Candelario v. Candelario — Referenced for its clear definition of the three essential characteristics of psychological incapacity: gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence.

• Article 36 of the Family Code — This is the statutory basis for the petition, allowing for the declaration of nullity of a marriage where one or both parties were, at the time of the celebration, psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.
• Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code — These articles enumerate the essential marital obligations, such as living together, observing mutual love, respect, fidelity, and rendering mutual help and support. The Court found Romelia failed to comply with these obligations.

• Justice Caguioa — He dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the petitioner failed to sufficiently prove the juridical antecedence of the respondent's psychological incapacity. He contended that while the "lived conjugal life" can be examined, the evidence presented did not clearly trace the respondent's problematic behaviors during the marriage back to a personality disorder that existed prior to or at the time of the wedding. He warned that without establishing this causal link, the ruling risks equating psychological incapacity with divorce.