G.R. No. 224638 . April 10, 2019. ROLANDO D. CORTEZ, Petitioner, vs. LUZ G. CORTEZ, Respondent.
FACTS

Petitioner Rolando Cortez filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to respondent Luz Cortez on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged the marriage was contracted under duress, claiming he was forced to marry respondent after being tricked into a compromising situation. He asserted they never cohabited as husband and wife and that he only discovered respondent had another family later. Petitioner further claimed a medical examination revealed he had a low sperm count, casting doubt on his paternity of the children. To support his petition, he presented the psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Felicitas Soriano, who concluded both parties were psychologically incapacitated.
Respondent opposed the petition, denying the allegations of force and deceit. She asserted they had a genuine romantic relationship prior to marriage, which was entered into voluntarily when she became pregnant. She presented evidence of their correspondence and petitioner’s act of designating her as his allottee for seafarer’s benefits as proof of a functional marital relationship initially. She contended their marital problems began only when petitioner expressed a desire to be with another woman.

ISSUE

Whether the totality of evidence presented by petitioner sufficiently establishes the psychological incapacity of either or both parties to warrant the declaration of nullity of their marriage.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings upholding the validity of the marriage. The Court reiterated that psychological incapacity must be more than mere irreconcilable differences, marital strife, or refusal to perform marital obligations. It must be a grave, severe, and incurable psychological condition existing at the time of the marriage that completely deprives a person of the capacity to understand and fulfill the essential marital obligations.
The Court found petitioner’s evidence sorely lacking. His own narrative and actions contradicted his claim of absolute incapacity from the inception of the marriage. His act of voluntarily applying for a marriage license, designating respondent as his allottee, attending his children’s baptisms, and providing support for years demonstrated an initial understanding and assumption of marital and parental responsibilities. The psychiatric report was deemed insufficient, as it relied heavily on petitioner’s self-serving, uncorroborated accounts and failed to establish that the alleged disorders were grave, rooted in the parties’ history prior to the marriage, and truly incurable. The burden of proof rests on the petitioner, and he failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the incapacity was juridically antecedent, grave, and permanent. Thus, the marriage subsists.