Case Digest (G.R. No. 152577)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Crasus L. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, sought review under Rule 45 of the Court of Appeals' Decision (CA‑G.R. CV No. 62539, July 30, 2001) which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 22's Judgment (Civil Case No. CEB‑20077, October 30, 1998) declaring the marriage of respondent Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal‑Iyoy null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The RTC proceedings began with respondent Crasus's Complaint filed March 25, 1997, alleging that he and Fely were married on December 16, 1961 and bore five children; that Fely was “hot‑tempered, a nagger and extravagant,” left for the U.S. in 1984 abandoning the children, thereafter obtained a foreign divorce and remarried an American, openly used her American husband’s surname, and that her acts demonstrated psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations, invoking Article 36 (with reference to Arts. 68, 70, 72). Fely answered and counterclaimed (June 5, 1997), admitting marriage and children but denying the psychological incapacity allegations, explaining her departure as for financial reasons, stating she supported the family, claiming she secured a divorce abroad and remarried, and alleging she acquired U.S. citizenship in 1988; she also sought recovery of P90,000 advanced for a child’s operation.
At trial, the prosecuting attorney appeared for the State. Crasus testified (TSN Sept. 8, 1997) and offered a certification of the marriage record and a wedding invitation in which Fely used the surname “Micklus.” Fely sought to take depositions of witnesses abroad via consular commissions, but no depositions were returned; the RTC deemed Fely to have waived her right to present evidence (Order Oct. 5, 1998) and the case was submitted. On October 30, 1998 the RTC (Judge Pampio A. Abarintos) declared the marriage null and void on psychological incapacity grounds, finding plaintiff’s testimony credible and citing defendant’s abandonment, foreign divorce and remarriage as indicia of incapacity.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on July 30, 2001 (penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino‑Hormachuelos, with concur. Justices Cancio C. Garcia and Mercedes Gozo‑Dadole), adding that the defendant’s foreign divorce and remarriage justified the declaration. The Solicitor General, representing the Republic, assailed the CA decision in this Rule 45 Petition, arguing (among other points) that abandonment and infidelity do not...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to establish respondent Fely’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code such that the marriage should be declared null and void?
- Is Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code applicable to permit the Filipino spouse to remarry where the foreign spouse secured a divorce abroad but was a Filipino at the time the divorce was obtained?
- Is the Solicitor General authorized to intervene on behalf of the State in annulment and nullity p...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)