VICCA LORAINE GAKO

Case Name: Republic of the Philippines vs Crasus Iyoy

Citation: 470 SCRA 508

Procedural History: This case is a petition for review by the RP represented by OSG

on certiorari praying for the reversal of the decision of the CA affirming the judgment of

the RTC declaring the marriage of Crasus and Fely Iyoy null and void based on Article

36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Facts: Crasus and Fely Iyoy married on December 16, 1961 which they had five

children. In 1984, Fely went to the United States and at the same year sent divorce

papers to Crasus asking the latter to sign them. In 1985, Crasus found out that Fely

married an American Citizen named Stephen Micklus and eventually bore him a child.

Fely went back to the Philippines occasionally, including once when she attended the

marriage of one of her children where she freely used the surname of her second

husband in the invitations. On March 1997, Crasus filed a complaint for declaration of

nullity in their marriage in the ground of psychological incapacity since Fely

unambiguously brought “danger and dishonor” to the family. Fely however filed a

counterclaim and avouched therein that Crasus was a drunkard, womanizer, and

jobless, the reason forced the former to left for the United States. Furthermore, Fely

argued her marriage to Stephen Micklus valid since she’s already an American Citizen

and therefore not covered by our laws.

Issue: Whether or not the abandonment and sexual infidelity per se constitute

psychological incapacity?

Ratio Decidendi: No since the evidences presented by the respondent failed to prove

psychological incapacity as the Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates downright

incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations;

not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant

spouse. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and

irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and

abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity

under the said Article (Republic vs Iyoy G.R. No. 152577).

In conclusion, Article 36 of the Family code is not to be confused with a divorce law that

cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a

serious psychological illness afflicting apart even before the celebration of marriage. It is

a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and

responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume (Republic vs Iyoy G.R.

No. 152577).

Holding: Petition granted; CA Decision reversed