It is possible to come up with situations depending on the metric of “evolutionary distance” which you use where those conditions might be met. For instance, you’ll see trees where branch lengths are based on base pair differences or something similar.
However, as @jnstuart notes, the key concept is common ancestry - this is what “relatedness” refers to. In the case of comparing G and F on your diagram, it could be valid to say that G has diverged more from C than F has from C. In this comparison though, C is the common ancestor of F and G. F wouldn’t be considered more closely related to D than G however, regardless of branch lengths, because F and G share a common ancestor (C) that D does not. If you had a trichotomy where F,G, and D all shared the same common ancestor, some types of comparisons would be valid.
If you’re really interested in this, I would recommend an undergrad or grad level Evolution textbook - and that’s not meant in any kind of negative way. I bet you’d find it really interesting, and the authors will certainly do a better job explaining the concepts than most of us on the forum will!