26/04/2025
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CmRkZM7vt/?mibextid=wwXIfr
| The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the Court of Appeals dismissal of a husband's petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and held that the wife's lack of concern for her responsibilities constitutes psychological incapacity.
In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC Third Division has nullified the marriage between Ericson and Romelia Cabutaje on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity.
Ericson and Romelia were married in January 2003, and they had a daughter named Keirah Angela. While living with Ericson's parents, Romelia was urged by his mother to apply for work abroad. Thenceforth, Romelia went to Taiwan, leaving Ericson to take care of Keirah. Although Romelia was able to send money to them during the first few months, the money remittances eventually became scarce, prompting Ericson to similarly apply for work in Taiwan.
In Taiwan, the spouses rarely met as their workplaces were far apart. Over time, the marriage turned sour, and Romelia became inconsistent in providing financial support to their child. After several months of marital strife and upon the end of her contract in Taiwan, Romelia left for the Philippines and stayed with her parents.
She went to her in-laws' house to fetch Keirah. Romelia left Keirah in the custody of her sister when she went to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper. Since then, Romelia no longer provided financial support for Keirah. Egregiously, she had another romantic relationship with a different man.
This prompted Ericson to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Romelia. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and declared their marriage void ab initio. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), brought up the case before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA reversed the disposition of the RTC, citing purported insufficiency of evidence to support Ericson's petition. This paves the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.
In reversing the appellate court's ruling, the high court gave great weight to the findings of clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy Tayag, who said Romelia is psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations. Although Dr. Tayag's findings were only anchored based on her interviews with Ericson and his witnesses. The lack of personal examination and interview of Romelia does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the expert.
“Indeed, the fact that the information comes from one side alone should not dilute the veracity of the evidence that Ericson presented during the trial, for to do so would punish every innocent spouse suffering in a marriage with a psychologically incapacitated spouse who comes to the court for succor. Ultimately, courts should judiciously assess the merits of each Article 36 petition on a case-to-case basis, including the psychological report, if any, regardless of the fact that only one of the spouses was interviewed by the psychologist,” the SC said.
“Due to Romelia's evident disregard and lack of concern for her responsibilities as a wife and mother, Ericson and their child were deprived of moral and emotional support, respect, love, care, and trust... Accordingly, the totality of evidence establishes, at most, her psychological incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligations,” SC added.
