Title
Supreme Court
Simundac-Keppel vs. Keppel
Case
G.R. No. 202039
Decision Date
Aug 14, 2019
A Filipina-German couple's marriage annulment and property dispute; SC upheld CA, denied annulment, ordered equal property division, remanded citizenship and land ownership issues.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 202111)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Antecedents
  • In November 1972, petitioner Angelita Simundac Keppel, a Filipino nurse, went to Germany and in June 1976 married fellow Filipino-turned-German citizen Reynaldo Macaraig; they had one son.
  • Angelita naturalized as German in February 1986, secured divorce from Reynaldo in June 1988, and married German citizen Georg Keppel in August 1988; they had one daughter in November 1989.
  • In 1991, Angelita and Georg executed a German “Matrimonial Property Agreement” (complete separation of property); in 1992 they returned to the Philippines, where Angelita invested in real estate and businesses.
  • In 1994, Angelita ceased financial support after discovering Georg’s infidelity; in March 1996 Angelita and her children left their home amid allegations of abuse, and Angelita sold the family house to her sister.
  • Petition and Lower Court Proceedings
  • March 26, 1996: Angelita filed for annulment of her marriage to Georg on the ground of his alleged psychological incapacity and claimed all properties under their German separation agreement.
  • RTC (June 21, 2006): Declared the 1988 marriage null for Georg’s psychological incapacity; awarded all real and personal properties to Angelita; granted custody to Angelita and ordered equal support.
  • CA (September 26, 2011): Reversed the RTC; dismissed the annulment petition for failure to prove the prior divorce decree, the applicable German law, and psychological incapacity; upheld Angelita’s ownership of Philippine-acquired properties only.
  • SC Appeal: Angelita argued the CA erred in not recognizing her German law capacity to marry, in requiring proof of foreign law, and in finding insufficient evidence of psychological incapacity; Georg argued the evidence was insufficient and land-ownership prohibitions inapplicable.

Issues:

  • Applicable Law and Pleading Requirements
  • Does Philippine annulment law apply to a marriage between German citizens?
  • Did Angelita properly allege and prove the relevant German laws (divorce capacity and property regime)?
  • Psychological Incapacity
  • Did Angelita prove Georg’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code (assuming its applicability)?
  • Property Rights and Citizenship
  • Were the lower courts correct in awarding all personal and real properties to Angelita, given the default community regime and constitutional/statutory limits on land ownership by aliens or former Filipinos?
  • Does Angelita’s alleged re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship affect her land-ownership rights?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.