ROLANDO D. CORTEZ, PETITIONER, V. LUZ G. CORTEZ, RESPONDENT.

Cortez versus Cortez

The Case

This is the case of Cortez versus Cortez, a petition by Rolando Cortez to annul his marriage to Luz Cortez on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Supreme Court refused to dissolve the marriage, and the case matters because it is a compact restatement of what psychological incapacity is not: it is not mere difficulty, refusal, neglect, or ill will in the performance of marital obligations, and it is not a marriage entered into without love or for convenience. For the bar candidate, it is a ready illustration of the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability standard applied to a weak evidentiary record.

Procedural History

Rolando filed an amended petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City. In a decision dated July 9, 2012, the trial court denied the petition and declared that the marriage subsists and remains valid. Rolando moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in an order dated October 4, 2012. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated November 5, 2015, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court, giving credence to Luz's account of an initially loving relationship that soured when Rolando chose to be with another woman, and finding that the totality of the evidence did not establish psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals denied his motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated May 13, 2016. Rolando then filed with the Supreme Court this petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Rolando and Luz were married on March 5, 1990 before a Municipal Trial Court Judge of Meycauayan, Bulacan. Rolando's story was that he was tricked and coerced: after drinking beer at a birthday party, he woke up in a room with Luz in his underwear, her policeman brother entered and demanded that he answer for what happened, and a hold-departure order secured by Luz, then pregnant, forced him to marry her so he could leave for his work as a seaman. He claimed they never had a honeymoon or sexual intercourse, that he never lived with her, and that he supported her and the two children only out of doubt and reservation.

Luz's story was different. She said they were introduced by a common friend in 1988, became sweethearts, and that Rolando would sleep over at her apartment; when she got pregnant they decided to marry. She said he was a responsible husband who made her his allottee, that their troubles began in 1994 when he told her his new year's wish was to be with another woman named Susan Barry, and that he left their apartment in 1995. She filed a complaint for abandonment and demanded support for the children, which ended in a compromise agreement on support.

Rolando presented a psychiatric evaluation report by Dr. Felicitas Artiaga-Soriano, who concluded that both parties were psychologically incapacitated: Rolando as dependent and passive-aggressive, emotionally scarred by a forced marriage without love, and Luz as suffering from anti-social personality disorder. The trial court rejected the report's conclusions, relying instead on a postcard Rolando sent Luz in 1988, his own application for a marriage license in February 1990, the allotment slips naming her as allottee, photographs of the couple together on a bed taken while he was in the Philippines, his letters promising to save for a family business, educational plans he bought for the children, and an authorization in which he called the two children "my children" and "our children."

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's finding that the totality of evidence failed to show that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with their essential marital obligations.
• Whether or not Rolando's claim that he married without love and only to lift the hold-departure order amounts to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
• Whether or not the psychiatric evaluation report, based solely on information supplied by Rolando, sufficed to prove the psychological incapacity of either spouse.

Applicable Provisions

Article 36 of the Family Code provides:

Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

This is the sole ground invoked, and the entire case turns on whether the evidence reached the incapacity the provision requires rather than mere difficulty in performing marital duties.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no error. Quoting its earlier ruling in Yambao versus Republic, it explained that Article 36 contemplates an incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations, and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in their performance, or ill will. The incapacity must be a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage, must refer to the essential obligations of marriage, and must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality. Quoting Republic versus Tobora-Tionglico, the Court repeated that the incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The Court held that the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which coincided, are generally binding, and that a petition for review on certiorari is not the occasion to weigh the evidence anew.

On the second issue, the Court held that marrying without love does not rise to the level of psychological incapacity. Quoting Republic versus Spouses Romero, which in turn quoted Republic versus Albios, the Court stressed that motives for entering marriage are varied and complex, and that marriages entered into for convenience, companionship, money, status, or title, provided they comply with all the legal requisites, are equally valid, because love, though the ideal consideration, is not the only valid cause for marriage. The Court added that Rolando's showing of ill will and refusal to perform marital obligations did not amount to psychological incapacity, and that a lack of realization of one's marital obligations is not the consideration under Article 36, which requires a mental illness that leads to an inability to comply with or comprehend essential marital obligations.

On the third issue, the Court held that the psychiatric report failed to show how Rolando's personality traits incapacitated him from complying with the essential obligations of marriage; it merely established that because he was forced to marry without love, he had no intention to do his full obligations. As for Luz, the findings that she had no mind, will, and heart to perform the obligations of marriage rested on no basis other than information supplied by Rolando, which the Court likened to admitting hearsay evidence, and were contradicted by her letters expressing care for his health and safety, explaining that the allotment money went to rent, the children's education, and savings for a house, and asking forgiveness for nagging him out of jealousy. The burden of proving psychological incapacity lay on Rolando, and he failed to discharge it.

Doctrine

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is an incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations, and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in their performance, or ill will toward the spouse. It must be characterized by gravity, meaning it is grave and serious such that the party is incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties of marriage; juridical antecedence, meaning it is rooted in the history of the party before the marriage, although its overt manifestations may emerge only afterward; and incurability, meaning it cannot be cured, or the cure would be beyond the party's means. It must be shown to arise from a psychological illness, not from stubbornness, refusal to cohabit, infidelity, or the pursuit of financial support for one's children. A marriage entered into without love, or for convenience, money, status, or other lawful considerations, is valid and is not void under Article 36. Finally, a psychiatric report built solely on information supplied by one spouse cannot establish the other spouse's incapacity, and the burden of proof rests on the petitioner.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals; the marriage of Rolando and Luz subsists and remains valid.

Remember This

Memorize the line that psychological incapacity is an inability to assume marital obligations rooted in a grave, antecedent, and incurable psychological illness, never mere difficulty, refusal, neglect, or ill will. Examiners use this case to test the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability standard, and to test whether a marriage contracted without love or for convenience can be annulled under Article 36.