Case Summary (G.R. No. 152577)
Petitioner
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
Respondent
Crasus L. Iyoy.
Key Dates
Marriage solemnized December 16, 1961
Complaint filed March 25, 1997
RTC Judgment promulgated October 30, 1998
Court of Appeals Decision rendered July 30, 2001
Supreme Court Decision issued September 21, 2005
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution; Family Code of the Philippines (Articles 36, 26(2), 48; Articles 68, 70, 72); Civil Code on nationality; Administrative Code empowering the Solicitor General.
Background Facts
Crasus and Fely married in 1961 and had five children. Marital relations deteriorated amid allegations of Fely’s hot temper, extravagance and eventual abandonment in 1984. Fely relocated to the U.S., obtained a divorce abroad, remarried an American, acquired U.S. citizenship and used her new surname in the Philippines. After thirteen years of separation and no reconciliation, Crasus filed a petition for nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging Fely’s incurable psychological incapacity to fulfill essential marital obligations.
RTC Proceedings and Judgment
At trial, Crasus testified to Fely’s abandonment and remarriage; submitted marriage registration and a wedding invitation showing her new surname. Fely failed to present deposition evidence despite court commissions to Philippine consular officers. The Regional Trial Court deemed her evidence waived and, finding her psychological incapacity grave, antecedent and incurable, declared the marriage null and void ab initio under Article 36.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed, adding that Article 26(2) of the Family Code—which permits a Filipino spouse to remarry when the alien spouse validly divorces abroad—should extend to Fely, who later became an alien. It held it would be unjust to bind Crasus to a marriage that no longer exists in fact.
Issues on Review
The Supreme Court granted review to determine: (1) whether the evidence supports a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36; (2) whether Article 26(2) applies when the spouse is not an alien at the time of divorce; and (3) whether the Solicitor General is duly authorized to intervene.
Insufficient Evidence of Psychological Incapacity
Applying the Santos-Molina guidelines, the Court reiterated that psychological incapacity must be a grave, juridically antecedent and incurable mental condition, clinically identified and proven by expert or substantial corroborative evidence. Crasus presented only self-serving testimony and peripheral documents, insufficient to establish an incapacity present at the time of the 1961 celebration and incurable. Emotional immaturity, abandonment, infidelity and remarriage, without proof of a disabling psychological disorder, do not satisfy Article 36’s stringent requirements. Doubts are resolved in favor of marital validity under the 1987 Constitution’s strong protection of the family.
Inapplicability of Article 26(2)
Article 26(2) applies only when the foreign spouse validly divorces a Filipino spouse. Fely was still a Filipino citizen when she obtained her U.S. divorce—Philippine law does not recognize divorce among Filipinos. Thus, she lacked capacity to remarry under Philippin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 152577)
Parties
- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General
- Respondent: Crasus L. Iyoy
Facts of the Case
- Marriage solemnized on 16 December 1961 at Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Avenue, Cebu City
- Five children from the union: Crasus Jr., Daphne, Debbie, Calvert, and Carlos—all now of legal age
- Respondent characterized his wife, Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy, as “hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant”
- In 1984, Fely left for the United States, leaving all five children under Crasus’s care
- In 1985, Fely married an American and bore a child; acquired U.S. citizenship in 1988
- Fely returned intermittently (1987, 1990, 1992, 1995) but refused reconciliation
- She used her American husband’s surname “Micklus” in invitations and in public life
- Respondent received—and ignored—a letter enclosing divorce papers from Fely
Procedural History
- 25 March 1997: Crasus filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 (psychological incapacity), in relation to Arts. 68, 70, and 72 of the Family Code
- 05 June 1997: Fely filed Answer and Counterclaim seeking nullity of marriage and reimbursement of ₱90,000, plus damages and fees
- Pre-trial briefs exchanged; parties allowed to present evidence
- Crasus offered his own testimony, marriage registration certification, and a wedding invitation showing Fely’s American surname
- Fely sought depositions abroad; none were returned; RTC deemed her to have waived evidence presentation
- 30 October 1998: RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio for psychological incapacity
- 30 July 2001: Court of Appeals affirmed RTC Decision and invoked Art. 26(2) of the Family Code
- 08 March 2002: CA denied Fely’s motion for reconsideration
- Republic filed Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court
RTC Findings and Judgment
- Credited Crasus’s testimony on Fely’s alleged incapacity and abandonment
- Found unmistakable signs of psychological incapacity to fulfill e