Title
Republic vs. Iyoy
Case
G.R. No. 152577
Decision Date
Sep 21, 2005
Crasus sought nullity of marriage, citing Fely's abandonment, infidelity, and remarriage as psychological incapacity. SC ruled marriage valid, citing insufficient evidence and upholding state interest in preserving marital bonds.

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 reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.