Case Summary (G.R. No. 152577)
Key Dates
Marriage celebrated: 16 December 1961 (Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Avenue, Cebu City).
Complaint for declaration of nullity filed: 25 March 1997.
RTC judgment: 30 October 1998 (declaring marriage null and void under Article 36).
Court of Appeals decision affirming RTC: 30 July 2001.
Supreme Court decision reversing CA and RTC: September 21, 2005 (case brought under Rule 45).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statutory provisions considered: Article 36 (psychological incapacity) and Articles 68, 70, 72 (essential marital obligations) of the Family Code; Article 26 (recognition of foreign marriages and, in its second paragraph, capacity to remarry when alien spouse obtains divorce abroad); Article 48 (role of public prosecutor in annulment/nullity proceedings). Civil Code nationality principle (Article 15) was applied in the analysis. Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution provisions on the family (Article XV, Sections 1 and 2) which establish marriage and the family as foundational and to be protected by the State. Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) provisions on the role of the Solicitor General and the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 01‑11‑10‑SC / A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC) were also considered for the Solicitor General’s participation.
Procedural History
Respondent Crasus filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of his 1961 marriage to Fely on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36. Fely answered and counterclaimed for annulment and monetary reliefs; she admitted marriage and children but denied the psychological incapacity allegations and asserted she had obtained a foreign divorce and remarried in the U.S., later acquiring U.S. citizenship (admitted in her Answer to have become an American citizen in 1988). Trial proceeded in RTC; the provincial prosecutor participated. The RTC barred Fely from presenting evidence after failure to secure depositions abroad and delay, and thereafter declared the marriage void ab initio for psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision and extended reasoning to invoke Article 26(2). The Solicitor General (representing the Republic) appealed to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Facts Found and Allegations at Trial
Respondent alleged that after years of marriage and five children, his wife was hot‑tempered, a nagger, and extravagant; she left for the U.S. in 1984 leaving the children with him; she thereafter purportedly remarried an American and bore a child; she used her U.S. husband’s surname in social contexts in the Philippines; she obtained a foreign divorce; respondent claimed abandonment and that her acts evidenced incurable psychological incapacity to observe essential marital obligations. Fely denied several allegations, attributed marital problems to respondent’s drunkenness and womanizing, asserted financial reasons for her departure, and affirmed she supported the family financially and brought children to the U.S. (except one for medical reasons). Fely also sought recovery of sums she advanced and asserted her remarriage was legal under U.S. law and subsequent change of nationality.
Evidence Presented at Trial
Evidence for respondent consisted primarily of his own testimony, a certification of the marriage record, and an invitation showing Fely using her American husband’s surname. The defense sought to take depositions of Fely and some children before Philippine consuls in the U.S.; commissions and orders were issued but no depositions were returned. The RTC ultimately found that Fely waived presentation of her evidence due to delay and noncompliance and declared the case submitted on that basis.
RTC Findings and Rationale
The RTC concluded respondent’s testimony was credible and that Fely exhibited unmistakable psychological incapacity to perform essential marital obligations. The court cited abandonment, remarriage abroad, use of another surname, and conduct allegedly showing disregard for marital duties. The RTC applied Article 36 and inferred that the psychological incapacity existed at the time of the marriage even if overt manifestations appeared later; it declared the marriage null and void ab initio.
Court of Appeals Rationale
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, concurring that respondent had shown psychological incapacity and further reasoning that Article 26(2) of the Family Code supported relief when a spouse who was formerly Filipino later became an alien and obtained a divorce abroad. The appellate court construed Article 26(2) to permit extension of its benefits where the alien spouse’s change of nationality rendered the foreign divorce effective for purposes of permitting the Filipino spouse to remarry, and it viewed the continued marital bond under Philippine law as inequitable given the defendant’s remarriage abroad.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the totality of evidence established the elements of psychological incapacity under Article 36 (gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability) such that the marriage should be declared void; whether Article 26(2) applied to the factual situation; and whether the Solicitor General had authority to intervene for the Republic in this litigation.
Supreme Court Analysis on Article 36 (Psychological Incapacity)
The Court reiterated controlling precedents that Article 36 contemplates a serious psychological or mental incapacity (not mere marital faults) that renders a party incapable of appreciating and complying with the essential marital obligations (mutual love, respect, fidelity, help and support, cohabitation). The Court restated the three classical criteria: gravity, juridical antecedence (rooted in the history of the party and existing at the time of the marriage), and incurability. The Court emphasized the plaintiff bears the burden of proof and that doubts are resolved in favor of the validity and continuation of marriage, consistent with the 1987 Constitution’s policy to protect marriage and family.
Supreme Court Findings on Sufficiency of Evidence
Applying the standards, the Supreme Court found that the evidence presented by respondent was inadequate to establish the requisite psychological incapacity. The court emphasized that the proof consisted largely of respondent’s self‑serving testimony and minimal documentary evidence (marriage record and an invitation showing use of a different surname). The Court held that allegations of hot temper, nagging, extravagance, abandonment, sexual infidelity, remarriage abroad, and use of another surname—even if proven—do not, by themselves, establish the grave, antecedent, and incurable psychological illness required by Article 36. The Court noted prior doctrine excluding ordinary marital conflicts and individual misconduct as sufficient grounds for Article 36 relief. Consequently, the Court concluded the totality of the evidence failed to meet the Article 36 standards and resolved any doubt in favor of preserving marital validity.
Supreme Court Analysis on Article 26(2)
The Court addressed the Court of Appeals’ reliance on Article 26(2), which provides that where a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is validly celebrated and the foreign spouse later validly obtains a divorce abroad and is capacitated to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. The Supreme Court held that Article 26(2) did not apply here because, at the time the foreign divorce was obtained, Fely was still a Filipino citizen. Under the Civil Code nationality principle (Article 15) and current Philippine law, a Filipino spouse who secures a divorce abroad while still a Filipino cannot validly obtain a divorce with effect under Philippine law; therefore the second paragraph of Article 26 is not applicable to validate Fely’s foreign divorce or to permit respondent to remarry under Philippine law. The Court therefore rejected the appellate court’s extension of Article 26(2) to this factual posture.
Supreme Court Analysis on the Solicitor General’s Role
Respondent had contended that only the prosecuting attor
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152577)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 62539 dated 30 July 2001.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 22, Judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-20077 dated 30 October 1998 which declared the marriage of Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
- Supreme Court decision rendered G.R. No. 152577 on 21 September 2005 (opinion penned by Justice Chico-Nazario).
- Parties: Republic of the Philippines (petitioner, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General) vs. Crasus L. Iyoy (respondent, plaintiff in the RTC).
- The Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu participated at trial on behalf of the Republic before the RTC.
Facts
- Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy were married on 16 December 1961 at Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Avenue, Cebu City.
- The couple had five children: Crasus, Jr., Daphne, Debbie, Calvert, and Carlos, who were all of legal age at the time of the petition.
- After the marriage respondent Crasus alleged that Fely was hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant.
- In 1984 Fely left the Philippines for the United States, leaving all five children (the youngest then six years old) in the care of Crasus.
- About a year after leaving for the U.S., Crasus received a letter from Fely requesting him to sign enclosed divorce papers, which he disregarded.
- In 1985 Crasus learned from letters Fely sent to their children that she had married an American and had a child with him.
- In 1987 Fely returned to the Philippines with her American family and stayed at Cebu Plaza Hotel in Cebu City; she visited again in 1990, 1992, and 1995.
- Fely used her American husband's surname (Micklus) openly in the Philippines and in the U.S.; for example, wedding invitations for Crasus, Jr. named her as "Mrs. Fely Ada Micklus."
- At the time the Complaint for declaration of nullity was filed (25 March 1997) it had been thirteen years since Fely left and allegedly abandoned Crasus.
- Crasus alleged Fely’s acts brought danger and dishonor to the family and demonstrated psychological incapacity to perform essential marital obligations, incurable and continuing, invoking Article 36 in relation to Articles 68, 70 and 72 of the Family Code.
- Fely, in her Answer and Counterclaim (filed 5 June 1997), admitted prior marriage and the five children, denied many allegations, asserted she became an American citizen in 1988, had married Stephen Micklus after securing a divorce abroad, and claimed she left for the U.S. for financial reasons while continuing financial support to her children and to Crasus.
- Fely denied sending the alleged letter requesting Crasus to sign divorce papers and contended her remarriage was legal under the law of her present nationality; she alleged Crasus lived with another woman who bore him a child and accused him of misusing P90,000 she advanced for their son Calvert’s brain operation.
- Fely prayed that the RTC declare her marriage to Crasus null and void and sought recovery of P90,000 plus interest, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
Trial Proceedings and Evidence
- Parties filed Pre-Trial Briefs and then presented evidence at trial before RTC.
- Evidence offered by respondent Crasus:
- His own testimony given on 08 September 1997, repeating allegations in his Complaint.
- Certification dated 13 April 1989 by the Health Department of Cebu City regarding recording of the marriage contract in the Register of Deeds (marriage celebrated 16 December 1961).
- Invitation to the wedding of Crasus, Jr. showing Fely using the surname Micklus.
- Fely’s counsel filed a Notice and a Motion to take depositions of Fely and witnesses (Crasus, Jr. and Daphne) before Philippine consular officers in New York and California upon written interrogatories.
- The RTC issued Orders and Commissions to Philippine Consuls in New York and California to take depositions, but no depositions were ever submitted to the RTC.
- Because over a year lapsed since Crasus had presented his evidence and Fely failed to press the case or produce depositions, the RTC issued an Order dated 05 October 1998 considering Fely to have waived her right to present evidence; the case was deemed submitted for decision.
RTC Judgment (30 October 1998)
- RTC declared the marriage of Crasus and Fely null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36.
- Key findings by the trial court:
- Plaintiff’s testimony was found to be decidedly credible.
- Defendant exhibited unmistakable signs of psychological incapacity to comply with marital duties (striving for family unity, observing fidelity, mutual love, respect, help and support).
- Defendant practically abandoned plaintiff, obtained a foreign divorce, remarried and established another family, placing plaintiff in an anomalous situation of being married to a spouse married to another man abroad.
- Defendant’s conduct revealed a very low regard for marriage; defendant was said to be bereft of the mind, will and heart to comply with marital obligations and such incapacity existed at the time of the marriage.
- RTC concluded the ground of psychological incapacity was satisfactorily proven and declared the marriage null and void ab initio.
- Judgment authored by Judge Pampio A. Abarintos.
Court of Appeals Decision (30 July 2001)
- Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Judgment, finding no reversible error.
- Additional reasoning by the Court of Appeals:
- Quoted Article 26 of the Family Code (marriages solemnized abroad valid domestically and paragraph providing that where marriage between Filipino and foreigner is validly celebrated and the alien spouse subsequently obtains a valid divorce abroad capacitating him/her to remarry, the Filipino spouse likewise has capacity to remarry under Philippine law).
- Held that the second paragraph of Article 26 should be extended to a case where the spouse (originally Filipino) later acquired foreign citizenship, reasoning it would be unfair to leave plaintiff considered married to a spouse who embraced another citizenship and became an alien.
- Concluded that justice required relief for plaintiff by affirming trial court’s declaration of nullity.
- CA Decision penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos with concurring opinions.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the totality of evidence established psychological incapacity of Fely to justify declaration of nullity under Article 36.
- Whether Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code applies so as to validate defendant’s foreign divorce and permit application of that provision to a spouse who lat