Catalan vs.
CA Republic of the Philippines vs Crasus Iyoy
G.R. No. 167109, February 6, 2007
FACTS:
Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando on June 4, 1950 in Mabini, Pangasinan.
Thereafter, they migrated to the United States of America and allegedly became naturalized citizens thereof.
After 38 years of marriage, Felicitas and Orlando divorced in April 1988. Two months after the divorce, or on
June 16, 1988, Orlando married respondent Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan. Contending that said marriage
was bigamous since Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol, petitioner filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage with damages in the RTC of Dagupan City against Orlando and Merope.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a
real party-in-interest, but it was denied. Trial on the merits ensued.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner has legal personality to file the petition for nullity of marriage between Orlando and
Merope
RULING:
Petitioner’s personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained because of the
absence of the divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it. Hence, a remand of the case to the trial court for
reception of additional evidence is necessary to determine whether respondent Orlando was granted a
divorce decree and whether the foreign law which granted the same allows or restricts remarriage. If it is proved
that a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow respondent Orlando’s remarriage, then the
trial court should declare respondents’ marriage as bigamous and void ab initio. On the contrary, if it is
proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must
dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas Amor-
Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same. The case was remanded to the trial court for its proper
disposition.
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or even in
the Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage;
however, only a party who can demonstrate “proper interest” can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity
of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interestand
must be based on a cause of action. Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog, the Court held that the children have the
personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of the marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother
as it affects their successional rights. Significantly, Section 2(a) of The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which took effect on March 15, 2003, now specifically
provides: a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the
wife.
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?
RULING:
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
Republic vs. Orbecido

GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of Christ
in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly,
respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Orbecido
discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his wife
sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed with the trial
court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

HELD:

The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26
Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage
were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce
decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the
time of the solemnization of the marriage.

Hence, the court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen
who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to remarry under
Philippine law.