FACTS: Respondent Crasus Iyoy filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Crasus Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy both Filipino citizens during their marriage on December 16, 1961, and as a result of their union, they had five children.
After the celebration of their marriage, Crasus Iyoy discovered that Fely was “hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant.” In 1984, Fely left the Philippines for the United States of America (U.S.A.), leaving all of their five children. A year after Fely left for the U.S.A., Crasus received a letter from her requesting that he sign the divorce papers, but he disregarded the said request. Sometime in 1985, Crasus learned, through the letters sent by Fely to their children, that Fely got married to an American citizen. In 1987, Fely came back to the Philippines with her American family. Fely continued to live with her American family in New Jersey, U.S.A. She had been openly using the surname of her American husband in the Philippines and in the U.S.A.
At the time the Complaint was filed, it had been 13 years since Fely left and abandoned respondent Crasus, and there was no more possibility of reconciliation between them. Respondent Crasus finally alleged in his 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. Such incapacity, being incurable and continuing, constitutes a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
Fely contends that she was already an American citizen since 1988 and was now married to a US citizen. While she admitted being previously married to respondent Crasus and having five children with him, Fely explained that she was no more hot-tempered than any normal person, and could not have been extravagant since the family hardly had enough money for basic needs. Fely left for abroad for financial reasons as respondent Crasus had no job and what she was then earning as the sole breadwinner in the Philippines was insufficient to support their family. Although she left all of her children with respondent Crasus, she continued to provide financial support to them, as well as, to respondent Crasus. Subsequently, Fely was able to bring her children to the U.S.A.
While Fely filed for divorce from respondent Crasus, she denied having sent a letter to respondent Crasus requesting him to sign the enclosed divorce papers. After securing a divorce from respondent Crasus, Fely married her American husband and acquired American citizenship.
Fely argued that her marriage to her American husband was legal because being an American citizen, her status shall be governed by the law of her present nationality. Fely also pointed out that respondent Crasus himself was presently living with another woman who bore him a child.
The RTC promulgated its judgment declaring the marriage of respondent Crasus and Fely null and void ab initio. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not a foreign divorce decree obtained by a Filipino spouse who married a foreign national, and subsequently became foreign citizen, is valid here in the Philippines.
RULING: The Supreme Court held in the negative. A foreign divorce decree obtained by a Filipino spouse who at the time the foreign divorce decree was obtained is still a Filipino citizen is not valid.
Article 15 of the New Civil Code provides, “laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.” Moreover, Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines states, “where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
However, Art. 26 (2) is not applicable in this case. As it is worded, Art. 26 (2) refers to a special situation wherein one of the couples getting married is a Filipino citizen and the other a foreigner at the time the marriage was celebrated. By its plain and literal interpretation, 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. Although the exact date was not established, Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in 1984, after which she married her American husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that she had been an American citizen since 1988. 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. Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus.
Therefore, the marriage of respondent Crasus Iyoy and Fely Iyoy remains valid and subsisting.
