Petitioner in this case filed for nullity of his marriage. The trial court granted it. The State, however, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). It sought a reversal of the decision on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It argued that the psychologist the petitioner presented failed to interview the respondent wife. The former based her assessment merely on petitioner, relatives and a common friend’s accounts.
The appellate court reversed the lower court. Petitioner went up to the Supreme Court to question the appellate court’s decision. The issue here is whether the failure of the expert witness to examine the respondent should necessarily mean the failure to prove psychological incapacity. Must the respondent mandatorily be interviewed by the psychologist to validly assess and make the proper diagnosis?
The Supreme Court had this to say: “...the Court finds that the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s declaration of nullity of Ericson’s marriage to Romelia on the ground of psychological incapacity... “In reversing the RTC, the CA ratiocinated that Dr. Tayag’s report, anchored on the testimonies of Ericson, his sister, and a mutual friend of the spouses, fell short of establishing Romelia’s psychological incapacity, as she herself was not personally examined.
“This line of reasoning was already rejected in the early case of Camacho-Reyes as well as the landmark case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, where the Court decreed that direct and personal examination of an expert regarding either of the spouses’ psychological incapacity is not an absolute and indispensable requirement.
“To form an expert’s opinion, information obtained from either party to the marriage may suffice, thusly, the lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with a personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.
“For one, marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other. In this case, the experts testified on their individual assessment of the present state of the parties’ marriage from the perception of one of the parties, herein petitioner. Certainly, petitioner, during their marriage, had occasion to interact with, and experience, respondent’s pattern of behavior which she could then validly relay to the clinical psychologists and the psychiatrist.
“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. For another, the Court clarified that evidence should not only come from the petitioning spouse but also from other sources. 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.
“Here, Dr. Tayag prepared her report based on the information gathered not only from Ericson, but also from his sister, and the spouses’ mutual friend, Zunega, who knew Romelia prior to her marriage to Ericson. The Court elucidated in Tan-Andal thusly: Proof of [these] aspects of personality [ of the spouses] need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before [they] contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.
“From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. When expert opinion is present and made available, courts must give due regard thereto, particularly on the parties’ psychological and mental disposition. The presentation of expert testimony to prove that a person is suffering from an incurable mental illness, while dispensable, may be deemed as compelling evidence in resolving the issue of psychological incapacity.
“In the case at bench, given her expertise, Dr. Tayag’s assessment of Romelia may be accorded probative value. Unlike ordinary witnesses who must have personal knowledge of the matters they testify on, expert witnesses do not testify in court because they have personal knowledge of the facts of the case. The credibility of expert witnesses does not adhere in their person; rather, their testimony is sought because of their special knowledge, skill, experience or training that ordinary persons and judges do not have.”
The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from Ericson C. Cabutaje v. Republic of the Philippines and Romelia A. Cabutaje (G.R. 248569, 15 January 2025).