Case Digest (G.R. No. 224638)
Facts:
Rolando D. Cortez v. Luz G. Cortez, G.R. No. 224638, April 10, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Rolando D. Cortez sought annulment of his marriage to respondent Luz G. Cortez on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. They were married on March 5, 1990. Petitioner alleged he was essentially forced into the marriage after an episode at respondent’s home in early 1990 and that he left for work abroad as a seaman; he claimed he never cohabited in fact with respondent, had no conjugal relations, and later discovered facts that led him to doubt paternity of their two children.Petitioner filed an Amended Petition (docketed Civil Case No. 115-V-D3) on June 9, 2003, alleging both spouses were psychologically incapacitated; he introduced a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Felicitas Artiaga-Soriano diagnosing petitioner with dependency inclination and passive-aggressive personality traits and diagnosing respondent with an anti-social personality disorder, and concluding both were psychologically incapacitated. Respondent answered, asserting an initially loving relationship, continued communication while petitioner worked abroad, petitioner’s attendance at the baptisms and his designation of respondent as allottee, and that marital trouble began after petitioner became involved with another woman.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 172, Valenzuela City) rendered a decision dated July 9, 2012 denying the petition and holding the marriage subsisted, finding the evidence (postcard, marriage license application, allotment slips, photographs, letters, attendance at baptisms, and payments/support) inconsistent with petitioner’s claims of incapacity or lack of paternity. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on October 4, 2012.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 100062. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated November 5, 2015, sustained the RTC ruling and found that the totality of evidence did not prove psychological incapacity as defined in Article 36; the CA also denied pet...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s finding that the evidence failed to establish psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code sufficient to annul the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)