G.R. No. 152577 September 21, 2005 Republic of The Philippines, Petitioners, CRASUS L. IYOY, Respondent
G.R. No. 152577 September 21, 2005 Republic of The Philippines, Petitioners, CRASUS L. IYOY, Respondent
152577 September 21, 2005 clearly demonstrated her psychological incapacity to perform the essential
obligations of marriage. Such incapacity, being incurable and continuing,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, constitutes a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36, in
vs. relation to Articles 68, 70, and 72, of the Family Code of the Philippines.
CRASUS L. IYOY, Respondent.
Fely filed her Answer and Counterclaim4 with the RTC on 05 June 1997. She
asserted therein that she was already an American citizen since 1988 and was now
DECISION
married to Stephen Micklus. While she admitted being previously married to
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: respondent Crasus and having five children with him, Fely refuted the other
allegations made by respondent Crasus in his Complaint. She explained that she
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, was no more hot-tempered than any normal person, and she may had been
petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor indignant at respondent Crasus on certain occasions but it was because of the
General, prays for the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- latter’s drunkenness, womanizing, and lack of sincere effort to find employment
G.R. CV No. 62539, dated 30 July 2001,1 affirming the Judgment of the Regional and to contribute to the maintenance of their household. She could not have been
Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. CEB-20077, dated extravagant since the family hardly had enough money for basic needs. Indeed,
30 October 1998,2 declaring the marriage between respondent Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely left for abroad for financial reasons as respondent Crasus had no job and
Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy null and void on the basis of Article 36 of the Family Code what she was then earning as the sole breadwinner in the Philippines was
of the Philippines. insufficient to support their family. Although she left all of her children with
The proceedings before the RTC commenced with the filing of a Complaint3 for respondent Crasus, she continued to provide financial support to them, as well as,
declaration of nullity of marriage by respondent Crasus on 25 March 1997. to respondent Crasus. Subsequently, Fely was able to bring her children to the
According to the said Complaint, respondent Crasus married Fely on 16 U.S.A., except for one, Calvert, who had to stay behind for medical reasons.
December 1961 at Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Avenue, Cebu City. As a While she did file for divorce from respondent Crasus, she denied having herself
result of their union, they had five children – Crasus, Jr., Daphne, Debbie, Calvert, sent a letter to respondent Crasus requesting him to sign the enclosed divorce
and Carlos – who are now all of legal ages. After the celebration of their marriage, papers. After securing a divorce from respondent Crasus, Fely married her
respondent Crasus discovered that Fely was "hot-tempered, a nagger and American husband and acquired American citizenship. She argued that her
extravagant." In 1984, Fely left the Philippines for the United States of America marriage to her American husband was legal because now being an American
(U.S.A.), leaving all of their five children, the youngest then being only six years citizen, her status shall be governed by the law of her present nationality. Fely
old, to the care of respondent Crasus. Barely a year after Fely left for the U.S.A., also pointed out that respondent Crasus himself was presently living with another
respondent Crasus received a letter from her requesting that he sign the enclosed woman who bore him a child. She also accused respondent Crasus of misusing the
divorce papers; he disregarded the said request. Sometime in 1985, respondent amount of ₱90,000.00 which she advanced to him to finance the brain operation
Crasus learned, through the letters sent by Fely to their children, that Fely got of their son, Calvert. On the basis of the foregoing, Fely also prayed that the RTC
married to an American, with whom she eventually had a child. In 1987, Fely declare her marriage to respondent Crasus null and void; and that respondent
came back to the Philippines with her American family, staying at Cebu Plaza Crasus be ordered to pay to Fely the ₱90,000.00 she advanced to him, with
Hotel in Cebu City. Respondent Crasus did not bother to talk to Fely because he interest, plus, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation
was afraid he might not be able to bear the sorrow and the pain she had caused expenses.
him. Fely returned to the Philippines several times more: in 1990, for the wedding After respondent Crasus and Fely had filed their respective Pre-Trial Briefs,5 the
of their eldest child, Crasus, Jr.; in 1992, for the brain operation of their fourth RTC afforded both parties the opportunity to present their evidence. Petitioner
child, Calvert; and in 1995, for unknown reasons. Fely continued to live with her Republic participated in the trial through the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu.6
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. For the wedding of Respondent Crasus submitted the following pieces of evidence in support of his
Crasus, Jr., Fely herself had invitations made in which she was named as "Mrs. Complaint: (1) his own testimony on 08 September 1997, in which he essentially
Fely Ada Micklus." At the time the Complaint was filed, it had been 13 years reiterated the allegations in his Complaint;7 (2) the Certification, dated 13 April
since Fely left and abandoned respondent Crasus, and there was no more 1989, by the Health Department of Cebu City, on the recording of the Marriage
possibility of reconciliation between them. Respondent Crasus finally alleged in Contract between respondent Crasus and Fely in the Register of Deeds, such
his Complaint that Fely’s acts brought danger and dishonor to the family, and marriage celebration taking place on 16 December 1961;8 and (3) the invitation to
the wedding of Crasus, Jr., their eldest son, wherein Fely openly used her Going over plaintiff’s testimony which is decidedly credible, the Court finds that
American husband’s surname, Micklus.9 the defendant had indeed exhibited unmistakable signs of such psychological
incapacity to comply with her marital obligations. These are her excessive
Fely’s counsel filed a Notice,10 and, later on, a Motion,11 to take the deposition of disposition to material things over and above the marital stability. That such
witnesses, namely, Fely and her children, Crasus, Jr. and Daphne, upon written incapacity was already there at the time of the marriage in question is shown by
interrogatories, before the consular officers of the Philippines in New York and defendant’s own attitude towards her marriage to plaintiff. And for these reasons
California, U.S.A, where the said witnesses reside. Despite the Orders12 and there is a legal ground to declare the marriage of plaintiff Crasus L. Iyoy and
Commissions13 issued by the RTC to the Philippine Consuls of New York and defendant Fely Ada Rosal Iyoy null and void ab initio.15
California, U.S.A., to take the depositions of the witnesses upon written
interrogatories, not a single deposition was ever submitted to the RTC. Taking Petitioner Republic, believing that the afore-quoted Judgment of the RTC was
into account that it had been over a year since respondent Crasus had presented contrary to law and evidence, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The
his evidence and that Fely failed to exert effort to have the case progress, the RTC appellate court, though, in its Decision, dated 30 July 2001, affirmed the appealed
issued an Order, dated 05 October 1998,14 considering Fely to have waived her Judgment of the RTC, finding no reversible error therein. It even offered
right to present her evidence. The case was thus deemed submitted for decision. additional ratiocination for declaring the marriage between respondent Crasus and
Fely null and void, to wit –
Not long after, on 30 October 1998, the RTC promulgated its Judgment declaring
the marriage of respondent Crasus and Fely null and void ab initio, on the basis of Defendant secured a divorce from plaintiff-appellee abroad, has remarried, and is
the following findings – now permanently residing in the United States. Plaintiff-appellee categorically
stated this as one of his reasons for seeking the declaration of nullity of their
The ground bearing defendant’s psychological incapacity deserves a reasonable marriage…
consideration. As observed, plaintiff’s testimony is decidedly credible. The Court
finds that defendant had indeed exhibited unmistakable signs of psychological …
incapacity to comply with her marital duties such as striving for family unity,
observing fidelity, mutual love, respect, help and support. From the evidence Article 26 of the Family Code provides:
presented, plaintiff adequately established that the defendant practically "Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the
abandoned him. She obtained a divorce decree in the United States of America laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such,
and married another man and has establish [sic] another family of her own. shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1),
Plaintiff is in an anomalous situation, wherein he is married to a wife who is (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
already married to another man in another country.
"WHERE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FILIPINO CITIZEN AND A
Defendant’s intolerable traits may not have been apparent or manifest before the FOREIGNER IS VALIDLY CELEBRATED AND A DIVORCE IS
marriage, the FAMILY CODE nonetheless allows the annulment of the marriage THEREAFTER VALIDLY OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE ALIEN SPOUSE
provided that these were eventually manifested after the wedding. It appears to be CAPACITATING HIM OR HER TO REMARRY, THE FILIPINO SPOUSE
the case in this instance. SHALL LIKEWISE HAVE CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE
Certainly defendant’s posture being an irresponsible wife erringly reveals her very LAW."
low regard for that sacred and inviolable institution of marriage which is the The rationale behind the second paragraph of the above-quoted provision is to
foundation of human society throughout the civilized world. It is quite evident avoid the absurd and unjust situation of a Filipino citizen still being married to his
that the defendant is bereft of the mind, will and heart to comply with her marital or her alien spouse, although the latter is no longer married to the Filipino spouse
obligations, such incapacity was already there at the time of the marriage in because he or she has obtained a divorce abroad. In the case at bench, the
question is shown by defendant’s own attitude towards her marriage to plaintiff. defendant has undoubtedly acquired her American husband’s citizenship and thus
In sum, the ground invoked by plaintiff which is defendant’s psychological has become an alien as well. This Court cannot see why the benefits of Art. 26
incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations which already existed aforequoted can not be extended to a Filipino citizen whose spouse eventually
at the time of the marriage in question has been satisfactorily proven. The embraces another citizenship and thus becomes herself an alien.
evidence in herein case establishes the irresponsibility of defendant Fely Ada It would be the height of unfairness if, under these circumstances, plaintiff would
Rosal Iyoy, firmly. still be considered as married to defendant, given her total incapacity to honor her
marital covenants to the former. To condemn plaintiff to remain shackled in a In Santos v. Court of Appeals,20 the term psychological incapacity was defined,
marriage that in truth and in fact does not exist and to remain married to a spouse thus –
who is incapacitated to discharge essential marital covenants, is verily to condemn
him to a perpetual disadvantage which this Court finds abhorrent and will not ". . . [P]sychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not
countenance. Justice dictates that plaintiff be given relief by affirming the trial physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly cognitive of the basic marital
court’s declaration of the nullity of the marriage of the parties.16 covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to
the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include
After the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution, dated 08 March 2002,17 denied its their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and
Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner Republic filed the instant Petition before render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law
this Court, based on the following arguments/grounds – has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
I. Abandonment by and sexual infidelity of respondent’s wife do not per se inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological
constitute psychological incapacity. condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated…21
II. The Court of Appeals has decided questions of substance not in accord with The psychological incapacity must be characterized by –
law and jurisprudence considering that the Court of Appeals committed serious
errors of law in ruling that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code is (a) Gravity – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of
inapplicable to the case at bar.18 carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;
In his Comment19 to the Petition, respondent Crasus maintained that Fely’s (b) Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating
psychological incapacity was clearly established after a full-blown trial, and that the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines was indeed marriage; and
applicable to the marriage of respondent Crasus and Fely, because the latter had
already become an American citizen. He further questioned the personality of (c) Incurability – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
petitioner Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, to institute be beyond the means of the party involved.22
the instant Petition, because Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the
authorizes the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the trial court, not the Family Code of the Philippines were handed down by this Court in Republic v.
Solicitor General, to intervene on behalf of the State, in proceedings for Court of Appeals and Molina,23 which, although quite lengthy, by its significance,
annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages. deserves to be reproduced below –
After having reviewed the records of this case and the applicable laws and (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
jurisprudence, this Court finds the instant Petition to be meritorious. plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
I of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact
that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity
The totality of evidence presented during trial is insufficient to support the finding of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family,
of psychological incapacity of Fely. recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally
"inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.
Article 36, concededly one of the more controversial provisions of the Family
Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
Code of the Philippines, reads –
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and
ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or
after its solemnization. clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
Issues most commonly arise as to what constitutes psychological incapacity. In a requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its
series of cases, this Court laid down guidelines for determining its existence. manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince
the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor
an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi
or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no contemplated under Canon 1095.24
example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of
the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause A later case, Marcos v. Marcos,25 further clarified that there is no requirement that
must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or
explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage
psychologists. based on psychological incapacity. Such psychological incapacity, however, must
be established by the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of
the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the Using the guidelines established by the afore-mentioned jurisprudence, this Court
parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be finds that the totality of evidence presented by respondent Crasus failed miserably
perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, to establish the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife Fely; therefore, there
or prior thereto. is no basis for declaring their marriage null and void under Article 36 of the
Family Code of the Philippines.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the The only substantial evidence presented by respondent Crasus before the RTC
other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. was his testimony, which can be easily put into question for being self-serving, in
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage the absence of any other corroborating evidence. He submitted only two other
obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a pieces of evidence: (1) the Certification on the recording with the Register of
profession or employment in a job… Deeds of the Marriage Contract between respondent Crasus and Fely, such
marriage being celebrated on 16 December 1961; and (2) the invitation to the
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to wedding of Crasus, Jr., their eldest son, in which Fely used her American
assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological husband’s surname. Even considering the admissions made by Fely herself in her
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted Answer to respondent Crasus’s Complaint filed with the RTC, the evidence is not
as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not enough to convince this Court that Fely had such a grave mental illness that
a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or prevented her from assuming the essential obligations of marriage.
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines
accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage. contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty,
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.26 Irreconcilable differences,
71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical
221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non- abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by
complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the
evidence and included in the text of the decision. said Article.27
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the As has already been stressed by this Court in previous cases, Article 36 "is not to
Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes
given great respect by our courts… therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting
a party even before the celebration of marriage. It is a malady so grave and so
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down matrimonial bond one is about to assume."28
unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the
decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the The evidence may have proven that Fely committed acts that hurt and
case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting embarrassed respondent Crasus and the rest of the family. Her hot-temper,
attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from nagging, and extravagance; her abandonment of respondent Crasus; her marriage
to an American; and even her flaunting of her American family and her American III
surname, may indeed be manifestations of her alleged incapacity to comply with
her marital obligations; nonetheless, the root cause for such was not identified. If The Solicitor General is authorized to intervene, on behalf of the Republic, in
the root cause of the incapacity was not identified, then it cannot be satisfactorily proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages.
established as a psychological or mental defect that is serious or grave; neither Invoking Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines, respondent Crasus
could it be proven to be in existence at the time of celebration of the marriage; nor argued that only the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the RTC may
that it is incurable. While the personal examination of Fely by a psychiatrist or intervene on behalf of the State in proceedings for annulment or declaration of
psychologist is no longer mandatory for the declaration of nullity of their marriage nullity of marriages; hence, the Office of the Solicitor General had no personality
under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, by virtue of this Court’s to file the instant Petition on behalf of the State. Article 48 provides –
ruling in Marcos v. Marcos,29 respondent Crasus must still have complied with the
requirement laid down in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina30 that the root ART. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage,
cause of the incapacity be identified as a psychological illness and that its the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on
incapacitating nature be fully explained. behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to
take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
In any case, any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. 31
No less than the Constitution of 1987 sets the policy to protect and strengthen the That Article 48 does not expressly mention the Solicitor General does not bar him
family as the basic social institution and marriage as the foundation of the or his Office from intervening in proceedings for annulment or declaration of
family.32 nullity of marriages. Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987, appoints the Solicitor General as the principal law
II officer and legal defender of the Government.33 His Office is tasked to represent
Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines is not applicable to the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring
the case at bar.
the services of lawyers. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the
According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines – law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the
services of lawyers.34
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 The intent of Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines is to ensure that the
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and
under Philippine law. declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the parties, or
the fabrication or suppression of evidence; and, bearing in mind that the Solicitor
As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the land, then his
of the couple getting married is a Filipino citizen and the other a foreigner at the intervention in such proceedings could only serve and contribute to the realization
time the marriage was celebrated. By its plain and literal interpretation, the of such intent, rather than thwart it.
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 Furthermore, the general rule is that only the Solicitor General is authorized to
Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not established, Fely herself bring or defend actions on behalf of the People or the Republic of the Philippines
admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from once the case is brought before this Court or the Court of Appeals. 35 While it is
respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in 1984, after the prosecuting attorney or fiscal who actively participates, on behalf of the State,
which she married her American husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she in a proceeding for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage before the
alleged that she had been an American citizen since 1988. At the time she filed for RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General takes over when the case is elevated to
divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle the Court of Appeals or this Court. Since it shall be eventually responsible for
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound taking the case to the appellate courts when circumstances demand, then it is only
by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal reasonable and practical that even while the proceeding is still being held before
capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and even the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General can already exercise supervision and
until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses. Thus, control over the conduct of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal therein to better
Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus. guarantee the protection of the interests of the State.
In fact, this Court had already recognized and affirmed the role of the Solicitor the trial is terminated. It may require the Office of the Solicitor General to file its
General in several cases for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages that own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to the State. No other
were appealed before it, summarized as follows in the case of Ancheta v. pleadings or papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of
Ancheta36 – the period herein provided, the case will be considered submitted for decision,
with or without the memoranda.
In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [268 SCRA 198 (1997)], this Court
laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 48 of the Sec. 19. Decision. –
Family Code, one of which concerns the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State: …
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor (2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public prosecutor, shall be
General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down served with copies of the decision personally or by registered mail. If the
unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the respondent summoned by publication failed to appear in the action, the dispositive
decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the part of the decision shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation.
case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting (3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days from notice to
attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the parties. Entry of judgment shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or
the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor new trial, or appeal is filed by any of the parties, the public prosecutor, or the
General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi Solicitor General.
contemplated under Canon 1095. [Id., at 213]
…
This Court in the case of Malcampo-Sin v. Sin [355 SCRA 285 (2001)] reiterated
its pronouncement in Republic v. Court of Appeals [Supra.] regarding the role of Sec. 20. Appeal. –
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel (2) Notice of Appeal. – An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal
for the State…37 from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of
Finally, the issuance of this Court of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial. The appellant shall serve a
of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,38 which became copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties.
effective on 15 March 2003, should dispel any other doubts of respondent Crasus Given the foregoing, this Court arrives at a conclusion contrary to those of the
as to the authority of the Solicitor General to file the instant Petition on behalf of RTC and the Court of Appeals, and sustains the validity and existence of the
the State. The Rule recognizes the authority of the Solicitor General to intervene marriage between respondent Crasus and Fely. At most, Fely’s abandonment,
and take part in the proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of sexual infidelity, and bigamy, give respondent Crasus grounds to file for legal
marriages before the RTC and on appeal to higher courts. The pertinent provisions separation under Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, but not for
of the said Rule are reproduced below – declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the same Code. While this
Sec. 5. Contents and form of petition. – Court commiserates with respondent Crasus for being continuously shackled to
what is now a hopeless and loveless marriage, this is one of those situations where
… neither law nor society can provide the specific answer to every individual
problem.39
(4) It shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition
on the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City or Provincial WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision of the Court
Prosecutor, within five days from the date of its filing and submit to the court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62539, dated 30 July 2001, affirming the
proof of such service within the same period. Judgment of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. CEB-20077,
… dated 30 October 1998, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Sec. 18. Memoranda. – The court may require the parties and the public The marriage of respondent Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy remains
prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their valid and subsisting.
respective memoranda in support of their claims within fifteen days from the date SO ORDERED.