Case Summary (G.R. No. 205385)
RTC Decision
The Regional Trial Court (Muntinlupa City) declared the marriage null for Georg’s psychological incapacity, awarded all real and personal properties to Angelita, granted her custody of Liselotte, and directed equal child support. The court relied on medical reports diagnosing Georg’s antisocial personality as a psychological illness incompatible with marital obligations. The “Matrimonial Property Agreement” was enforced to allocate assets exclusively to Angelita, and Georg was barred from land ownership under Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution.
CA Decision
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissed the annulment petition, and upheld only the finding that properties acquired in the Philippines belong solely to Angelita. It ruled Angelita failed to prove (a) the original foreign divorce decree, (b) the governing German law permitting her remarriage, and (c) Georg’s psychological incapacity under Philippine standards.
Issues
- Whether Philippine law on psychological incapacity (Family Code, Art. 36) applies to two German citizens.
- Whether Angelita adequately proved Georg’s psychological incapacity.
- Whether Angelita and Georg’s property relations and land ownership awards comply with Philippine law.
Supreme Court on Foreign Law and Nationality Principle
Under the Nationality Principle, family relationships of foreign nationals are governed by their national law, not Philippine law. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign law; its existence and content must be pleaded and proved as factual matters. Angelita failed to allege or prove the relevant German law allowing annulment or validating her second marriage. In the absence of such proof, Philippine law cannot supply her remedy.
Psychological Incapacity Standard
Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code requires:
• A serious, medically or clinically identified mental disorder
• Existing at the time of marriage
• Permanent or incurable in relation to marital obligations
• Shown by expert testimony and clearly explained in judgment
Antisocial behavior alone, without proof of antecedent, grave and incurable psychological illness at marriage, is insufficient. Both parties exhibited antisocial traits, and no evidence established Georg’s incapacity at the time of their wedding. The petition thus failed on quantum of proof.
Property Regime and Matrimonial Agreement
Absent proof of the governing German law, the 1991 separation-of-property agreement is presumed identical to Philippine law, which mandates a written settlement signed before marriage (Family Code, Art. 77). Entered post-nuptials, it contravenes mandatory provisions. Under Article 75 (absolute community of property), personal properties should be equally divided.
Land Ownership and Citizenship Status
Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution prohibits aliens from owning priva
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205385)
Facts and Antecedents
- In November 1972, Angelita Simundac Keppel (Angelita) left the Philippines to work as a nurse in Germany.
- In 1976, Angelita married Reynaldo Macaraig (Reynaldo), a fellow Filipino‐turned‐naturalized German citizen; they had one son.
- Angelita later entered into an extramarital affair with Georg Keppel (Georg), a German nurse married to a Filipina; Reynaldo discovered the infidelity and the spouses separated.
- In February 1986, Angelita became a naturalized German citizen and returned to the Philippines with her son, maintaining correspondence with Georg.
- Georg’s German wife divorced him in July 1987; he visited Angelita’s family in the Philippines in September 1987.
- Angelita returned to Germany in December 1987, filed for divorce from Reynaldo, and obtained a decree in June 1988.
- Angelita and Georg married in Germany on 30 August 1988 and had a daughter, Liselotte, on 21 November 1989.
- In 1991, the spouses executed a Matrimonial Property Agreement for complete separation of property; Georg then resigned, was diagnosed with early multiple sclerosis, and the couple decided to settle permanently in the Philippines in 1992.
- Angelita acquired several real properties in Muntinlupa: a residential lot with a house (1993), a commercial building on a lot previously co‐owned with Reynaldo, and she invested in a school with relatives.
- From 1992 to 1994, Angelita supported Georg financially until discovering his extramarital affairs; in March 1996, claiming physical abuse, Angelita and her children left their home and Angelita sold the house to her sister.
- On 26 March 1996, Angelita filed a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of Georg’s alleged psychological incapacity; Georg opposed and sought legal separation and property division.
Regional Trial Court Decision
- Date of Decision: 21 June 2006 by RTC Branch 256, Muntinlupa City (Civil Case No. 96-048).
- Declared the August 30, 1988 German marriage null and void for Georg’s psychological incapacity under Article 36, Family Code.
- Found both spouses psychologically incapacitated, but Georg’s anti‐social/psychopathic personality deemed more severe.
- Held that all real and personal properties, including businesses, formed part of Angelita’s paraphernal property by virtue of the Matrimonial Property Agreement.
- Ordered equal support for Liselotte; awarded her custody to Angelita with visitorial rights to Georg.
Court of Appeals Decision
- Date of Decision: 26 September 2011 by CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 89297).
- Reversed and set aside the RTC decision, dismissing the annulment complaint except its declaration that properties acquired in the Philippines be