CASE 2019-0017: ROLANDO D. CORTEZ, PETITIONER, V. LUZ G. CORTEZ, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 224638, 10 APRIL 2019, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE; PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY) (BRIEF TITLE: CORTEZ VS CORTEZ)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated November 5, 2015 and the Resolution dated May 13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100062 are hereby AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER WAS NOT LOVING RESPONDENT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. IS THIS A MANIFESTATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY?

 

IT IS NOT. MERE “DIFFICULTY,” “REFUSAL,” OR “NEGLECT” IN THE PERFORMANCE OF MARITAL OBLIGATIONS OR “ILL WILL” ON THE PART OF THE SPOUSE IS DIFFERENT FROM “INCAPACITY” ROOTED ON SOME DEBILITATING PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION OR ILLNESS.

 

PETITIONER  HAS NO INTENTION IN THE BEGINNING TO DO THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF A HUSBAND AND FATHER. IS THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY?

 

IT IS NOT. MERE “DIFFICULTY,” “REFUSAL,” OR “NEGLECT” IN THE PERFORMANCE OF MARITAL OBLIGATIONS OR “ILL WILL” ON THE PART OF THE SPOUSE IS DIFFERENT FROM “INCAPACITY” ROOTED ON SOME DEBILITATING PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION OR ILLNESS.

 

PETITIONER LACKED REALIZATION THAT HE HAS MARITAL OBLIGATION TO PERFORM AS HUSBAND TO RESPONDENT. IT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY?

 

IT IS NOT. WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES IS A MENTAL ILLNESS THAT LEADS TO AN INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH OR COMPREHEND ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS.

 

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT ON WHETHER PETITIONER WAS PSYCHOLOGICALL INCAPACITATED TO PERFORM MARITAL OBLIGATIONS:

 

Thus, the antecedence can be traced to his rearing and family environment making him a person with dependency inclination and passive-aggressive in traits. As said, his psychological incapacity stems from his traits and his not loving the respondent from the very beginning. That is where gravity comes in as that is obviously, solid evidence, that he, from the beginning had no intentions whatsoever to do the duties and obligations of a husband and a father.[25]

 

We find that the report failed to show how petitioner’s personality traits incapacitated him from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. On the contrary, the report established that because petitioner was forced to marry respondent without love, he had no intention to do his full obligations as a husband. Mere “difficulty,” “refusal,” or “neglect” in the performance of marital obligations or “ill will” on the part of the spouse is different from “incapacity” rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness.[26]

 

Notably, petitioner admitted that it was only when he learned in 1994 that respondent had a child prior to their marriage in 1990 that he stopped giving support to respondent and their two children; that because of the abandonment case filed against him and the threats coming from respondent’s brothers if he would stop supporting respondent and the children that he entered into a compromise agreement with respondent regarding the financial support for their children; that despite giving support, however, he refused to live with respondent. Petitioner’s showing of ill-will and refusal to perform marital obligations do not amount to psychological incapacity on his part.

 

Petitioner’s claim of lack of realization that he has marital obligation to perform as husband to respondent is not a consideration under Article 36 of the Family Code as what the law requires is a mental illness that leads to an inability to comply with or comprehend essential marital obligations.[27]

 

We, likewise, agree with the CA’s and the RTC’s findings that respondent was not shown to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations. As the CA found, respondent was shown to be a caring wife and a loving mother to her children. The findings and conclusions made by Dr. Soriano that respondent did not have the mind, will and heart to perform the obligations of marriage as she did not show concern for petitioner and was just contented to get money from the latter cannot be given credence. There was no other basis for Dr. Soriano to arrive at such finding other than the information supplied by petitioner. To make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse’s psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side is not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.[28] Moreover, such finding was contradicted by respondent’s letters[29] to petitioner which were attached to petitioner’s Reply filed with the RTC where she wrote how much she wished for petitioner’s good health and safety; that the money she received from petitioner’s allotment was used to pay for the house rental, children’s education and other incidental expenses; that she would like to save money to buy a house for the future of their children; and that she asked for forgiveness for nagging him because of jealousy and that she still loves him. Respondent had shown that she is capable of fulfilling her marital obligations and that she valued her marriage as she even opposed the petition for annulment of her marriage and participated in the trial of the case.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SC-2019-0017-G.R. No. 224638-10 APRIL 2019-ROLANDO CORTEZ VS LUZ G. CORTEZ

 

 NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.