Republic Vs. Iyoy G. R. No.

152577 September 21, 2006 Facts: Crasus Iyoy married Fely on December 16, 1961 in Cebu City. As a result of their union, they had five children. After the celebration of their marriage, Crasus discovered that Fely was "hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant." In 1984, Fely left left the Philippines and went to U.S.A., leaving all of their five children to the care of Crasus.

Sometime in 1985, Crasus learned, through the letters sent by Fely to their children, that Fely got married to an American, with whom she eventually had a child. She returned to the Philippines several times and one of the visits was on the wedding of their eldest child where she used the name Mrs. Fely Ada Micklus on the invitation. Crasus filed a complaint that Fely's acts brought danger and dishonor to the family, and clearly demonstrated her psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage. He submitted his testimony, the
certification of the recording of their marriage contract, and the invitation where Fely used her American husbands surname as evidences.

Fely filed her answer stating that she did file for a divorce from Crasus after sometime her arrival in USA. She refuted the allegations made by Crasus in his complaint and explained that she may had been indignant at Crasus on certain occasions because of the latter's drunkenness, womanizing, and lack of sincere effort to find employment and to contribute to the maintenance of their household.
Issue: Does abandonment and sexual infidelity constitute psychological incapacity? Was the divorce instituted by Fely Valid? Held: On the 1st issue, the evidences presented by the respondent fail to establish psychological incapacity and there was no basis for declaring their marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines which states irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article. On the second issue, the divorce instituted by Fely is void. As worded in Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the married couple is a foreigner

who divorces his or her Filipino spouse. The said provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Fely admitted that she obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in 1984 (exact date was not established), after which she married her American husband in 1985. She said she became an American citizen in 1988. Therefore, at the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses.