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 shes 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