Atty. Christian Pillos Law Office

13/01/2026

FAILURE TO CONTINUOUSLY PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT, WITHDRAWAL FROM RESPONSIBILITY AS A PARENT, AND ENGAGEMENT IN PREMARITAL AFFAIRS ARE MANIFESTATIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY?

The Supreme Court in the case of ERICSON C. CABUTAJE vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMELIA A. CABUTAJE, in G.R. No. 248569, promulgated on January 15, 2025, answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.

THE FACTS:

Ericson married Romelia in Lasam, Cagayan, on January 2, 2003, and they had a daughter named Keirah, who was born on February 24, 2003. 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.

On August 10, 2012, Ericson filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage before Branch 33 of the RTC, Cagayan. He sought to have his marriage with Romelia declared void ab initio on the ground that they were both psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their marital obligations.

The RTC granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, denying the petition.

THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT. Petition is GRANTED.

The CA is mistaken. The record shows that Romelia failed to fulfill her marital obligations to observe love, respect, and fidelity and render help and support to her family, more so to her own daughter, Keirah. Even when she returned to the Philippines after working in Taiwan, she abandoned Keirah to the custody of her sister.

Her fidelity was also in question, considering that she was found to have had a relationship with another man while still being married to Ericson. Patently, her acts are not a result of a mild characterological peculiarity or mood change, as there appears to be a persisting failure on her part to be “a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse.” Her acts, taken together, render her psychological incapacity grave and incurable.

JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE.

During the early stages of the parties' relationship, Ericson had already observed that Romelia, being the youngest child, was "spoiled under the clout of her doting parents, who are known to be very lenient when it comes to discipline.”

Later on, this observation was echoed in Dr. Tayag's report as having been carried over to their marriage, resulting in Romelia's irresponsibility, immaturity, lack of remorse, and insensitivity to Ericson and their child.

MANIFESTSTIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.

Manifestations of her psychological incapacity include one, failure to continuously provide financial support to her family; two, withdrawal from her responsibilities as a mother (i.e. by leaving her child in her sister's custody); and three, engagement in extramarital relations.

To recapitulate, the concept of juridical antecedence must be understood to include the ordinary experiences of the spouses not only prior to the marriage itself, but more importantly, during their “lived conjugal life” together. After all, a marriage can nevertheless be declared null and void under Article 36 even if the incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

It is primal that the dissolution of marital bonds on the ground of psychological incapacity of either spouse does not amount to a demolition of the foundation of families.

For another, the Court clarified that evidence should not only come from the petitioning spouse but also from other sources.35 These include persons intimately related to them, such as relatives, close friends, or even family doctors or lawyers who could testify on the allegedly incapacitated spouse's condition at or about the time of marriage or to subsequent occurring events that trace their roots to the incapacity already present at the time of marriage.

-end-

08/01/2026

Huwag matakot magtanong sa abogado~ huwag sa feeling abogado. Baka imbes na sagot, subpoena ang makuha mo.✌️

Congratulations sa mga bagong abogado!👍

25/12/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1B4FZW32Gq/?mibextid=wwXIfr

15/07/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16n4mWmPLz/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The (SC) has reiterated that hiding one’s homosexuality from a spouse can be considered fraud and may be used as a ground to annul a marriage.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC’s Second Division annulled the marriage of a woman whose husband concealed his homosexuality before they got married.

The couple met on social media. On their first date, the woman noticed that the man seemed distant. The man also avoided sitting beside her. When asked about this, the man said he was just shy and lacked confidence.

The two kept a long-distance relationship as the man worked overseas. Notwithstanding this, they got married two years later.

But the man continued to avoid intimacy and often started arguments to avoid his wife. Just two months after the wedding, he returned overseas and stopped communicating with her.

Later, the woman found magazines with half-naked and naked male models among her husband’s things. When she confronted him, he admitted that he was homosexual. The woman then filed for annulment of their marriage.

The SC ruled that the woman’s consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud, and that the marriage must be annulled on the ground of fraudulent concealment of sexuality, following Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(4) of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Article 45 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 states that a marriage can be annulled if one party’s consent was obtained through fraud, as long as the couple did not continue living together after discovering the fraud. Article 46 further specifies that hiding one’s homosexuality or lesbianism from a spouse is considered fraud.

The SC gave credence to the woman’s allegations, noting that the man’s admission and his unexplained silence when his sexuality was being questioned could not be ignored. It found that the husband intentionally hid his homosexuality to persuade the woman to stay and marry him.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/ywadbxwp.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/yjn9a89f.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

28/06/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AyAqeGNyj/?

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yeapyzcd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

26/06/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EoDdceR29/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.