Republic of the Philippines, petitioner vs.

Crasus Iyoy, respondent

GR No. 152577 September 21, 2005
Facts:
Crasus Iyoy and Fely Rosal got married on December 16, 1961 and had five children who
are now adults. 23 years after their marriage, Fely went to the United States leaving all their
children with Crasus and barely after a year Fely left the Philippines, Crasus received divorce
papers from Fely which he refused to sign.
On March 25, 1997 Crasus filed a complaint in the RTC of Cebu to declare their
marriage null and void ab initio due to Article 36 of the Family code. He stated that Fely was
psychologically incapacitated because she was hot tempered, a nagger, extravagant, and have
abandoned Crasus.
In Fely’s reply she stated that she was no longer hot tempered and the reason for her
attitude was due to Crasus’ drunkenness, womanizing, & lack of sincerity to look for
employment. Also, the reason why she went abroad for financial purposes. She also prayed that
their marriage to be null and void.
On October 30, 1998 the RTC declared that their marriage was null and void ab initio.
Republic of the Philippines, the petitioner, appealed to the Court of Appeals believing
that the judgment of the RTC was contrary to law. However, the CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC for there was no reversible error.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the acts of Fely fall under the psychological incapacity of Article 36
of the Family Code.
2. Whether or not the Solicitor General has the personality to intervene before the
Regional Trial Court.
Ruling:
1. No. Acts of Fely do not satisfactorily establish a serious or grave psychological defect
that also should have been in existence at the time of the celebration of the marriage and
incurable.
2. Yes. Article 48 of the Family Code states that “In all cases of annulment or declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
assigned to it appear on behalf of the state to take steps to prevent collusion between the
parties and to take care that evidence is no fabricated or suppressed.” It is not intended to
bar the Solicitor General or his office from intervening in proceedings for annulment but
to ensure the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for
annulment and since the Solicitor General is the principal law officer then his
intervention could only serve and contribute to the realization of such intent, rather than
hindering it.