Republic vs.

Crasus Iyoy
G.R. No. 152577/ 21 September 2005
FACTS:
This case stemmed from the complaint filed by respondent-Iyoy for
declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Cebu City sometime in
1997. In his complaint, he alleged that his wife was a nagger, hot-tempered,
and extravagant. By reason of their marriage, they begot (five) 5 children
who are now all of legal ages. According to him, his wife Fely left the
Philippines in 1984 leaving all of their children. Shortly after Fely left the
country for the U.S.A, respondent receive a letter from her requesting that he
sign the enclosed divorce papers, but he disregard the same. In 1985, Fely
got married to an American whom she had a child. In 1987 to 1990, Fely
repeatedly went home with her American Family and stayed at Cebu Plaza
Hotel. Respondent-Iyoy did not bother to talk to her because he was afraid
that he might not be able to bear the sorrow and the pain she had caused
him. He also alleged that his wife was openly using the surname of her
American husband in the Philippines and in the USA. During the wedding of
their son, Fely allegedly made invitations in which she was named as Mrs.
Fely Ada Micklus. Consequently, respondent filed the subject action on the
ground cited under Article 36 of the Family Code.
In her answer, Fely explained the reasons why she left for USA.
According to her, she did this for financial reasons as respondent-Iyoy had no
job. She asserted that she was already an American citizen since 1988 and
married to an American. She further argued that her marriage to her
American husband was legal because now being an American citizen, her
status shall be governed by the law of her present nationality.
Not long after the Pre-trial, parties were required to submit their
respective pieces of evidence. Hence, Respondent-Iyoy presented three (3)
evidences which comprised his own testimony, their marriage certificate, and
the wedding invitation bearing Felys American surname. On the other side,
Fely failed to avail her right to present evidence. Thus, the RTC considered
her failure as waiver to such right.
Shortly thereafter, the RTC rendered its judgment declaring their
marriage null and void ab initio. Believing that the judgment is contrary to
law and evidence, the State through the OSG filed an appeal with the CA
where said court affirmed the RTCs ruling.
Hence, the State elevated this case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
(1) Did respondent-Crasus Iyoy sufficiently adduced evidence to

support the finding of psychological incapacity of his wife Fely?

(2) Is Artcle 26 of the Family Code applicable in the instant case?
HELD:
(1) NO.
The totality of evidence presented during trial is insufficient to support
the finding of psychological incapacity of Fely. The Supreme Court reiterated
the ruling in the case of Santos vs. CA where the term psychological
incapacity was defined. Thus, term should refer to no less than a mental (not
physical) incapacity that causes party to be truly cognitive of the basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by
the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family
Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect
and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that that
the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological
incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the
time the marriage is celebrated.
The SC added that psychological incapacity must be characterized by
the following:

Gravity it must be grave or serious such that the party would be

incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;

Juridical Antecedence it must be rooted in the history of the party

antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage; and

Incurability it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the

cure would be beyond the means of the parties involved.

A later case, Marcos v. Marcos, further clarified that there is no

requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally
examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the
declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Such
psychological incapacity, however, must be established by the totality of the
evidence e presented during the trial.
It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36 of the Family Code of the
Philippines contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance
of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or
difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.Irreconcilable
differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or
perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding
of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

(2) NO.
According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the
Philippines:
"Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise
have capacity to remarry under Philippine law".
As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation
wherein one of the couple getting married is a Filipino citizen and the other
a foreigner at the time the marriage was celebrated.
By its plain and literal interpretation, Article 26 of the Family Code
cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because
at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Although
the exact date was not established, Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed
before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus sometime
after she left for the United States in 1984, after which she married her
American husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that she had
been an American citizen since 1988. At the time she filed for divorce, Fely
was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle embodied
in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by
Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal
capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and
even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses.
Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus.