a. Doctrine: Article 36 of the Family Code.

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.
b. Case Title: Cortez vs. Cortez, GR. No. 224638, (J. Peralta) (April 10,
2019)
c. Facts:
1. Petitioner and respondent were married on March 5, 1990. On
June 9, 2003, petitioner filed an Amended Petition for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage on the ground of his and
respondent's psychological incapacity.
2. Petitioner claimed that at about the same time, he was already
scheduled to work abroad as a seaman. He was forced by
respondent's brothers to marry respondent before a Municipal Trial
Court Judge of Meycauayan, Bulacan, claiming that the
respondent was pregnant.
3. They never had a honeymoon nor sexual intercourse.
4. Petitioner stated that while he was abroad, respondent gave birth
to a son named John Rol G. Cortez on September 14, 1990. He
never lived with respondent since his return as he stayed in his
sister's house in Valenzuela City until his departure for abroad.
5. While overseas, respondent had given birth to a baby girl on
February 3, 1992.
6. In 1994, he came to know that respondent had a husband and a
child in Samar, thus, he suspended giving support to them.
However, respondent filed a case of abandonment against him but
 was later dismissed, as they executed a compromise agreement
for the support of the children.
7. Petitioner claimed that: upon his return to the Philippines in 1998,
he subjected himself to a semenal examination which showed that
he had low sperm count and did not have the capacity to
impregnate a woman.
8. Respondent claimed that their marital woes started in 1994 when
petitioner told her that his new year's wish was to be with another
woman, Susan Barry.
9. Petitioner consulted Dr. Felicitas Artiaga-Soriano, a psychiatrist.
10. On July 9, 2012, the RTC rendered its Decision denying the
petition. Petitioner's claim that respondent is also psychologically
incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations is unfounded.
11. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied
in an Order dated October 4, 2012.
12. Petitioner appealed the Decision to the CA. On November 5, 2015,
the CA issued its assailed Decision.
13. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied
in a Resolution dated May 13, 2016. Hence this petition for review
on certiorari filed by petitioner.
d. Issue/s: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding
that the totality of evidence presented by petitioner failed to show that
either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply
with their essential marital obligations which would result in the nullity
of their marriage.
e. Held: xxxx We find no error was committed by the CA when it
concurred with the RTC's finding that petitioner failed to show that he
and respondent were both psychologically incapable of knowing and
performing their marital and parental obligations. 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. The burden of proving psychological incapacity falls upon
petitioner. He must prove that he or respondent suffer from a
psychological disorder which renders them incapable of taking
cognizance of the basic marital obligations, which he failed to do.

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.