1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Georg; that in the eyes of the court, therefore, there could be no annulment of the marriage between Angelita and Georg to speak of because under Philippine law, Angelita had remained married to Reynaldo; that Angelita's evidence was insufficient to prove that either of the parties herein had been psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations inasmuch as anti-social behavior did not equate to psychological incapacity; and that the properties of the couple exclusively belonged to Angelita because Georg could not own lands in the Philippines. Issues In this appeal, Angelita posits that the CA erred in not declaring her marriage with Georg null and void inasmuch as Georg was suffering from psychological incapacity that rendered him incapable to fulfill his essential marital obligations as borne out by the medical findings; that being then a German citizen, she need not prove the dissolution of her marriage with Reynaldo, or the validity of her marriage with Georg because Philippine law did not apply in both instances; and that as alleged in her petition she had recently re-acquired her Filipino citizenship.[6] Georg counters that the evidence presented was not sufficient basis to conclude that he was psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations; and that the prohibition against land ownership by aliens did not apply because the bulk of the properties of the spouses consisted of personal properties that were not covered by the Constitutional prohibition. Did the CA err in sustaining the validity of the marriage of the parties? Are the lower courts correct in awarding all the properties of the spouses in favor of Angelita? Ruling of the Court The appeal fails to impress. I. Under the Nationality Principle, the petitioner cannot invoke Article 36 of the Family Code unless there is a German law that allows her to do so A fundamental and obvious defect of Angelita's petition for annulment of marriage is that it seeks a relief improper under Philippine law in light of both Georg and Angelita being German citizens, not Filipinos, at the time of the filing thereof. Based on the Nationality Principle, which is followed in this jurisdiction, and pursuant to which 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,[7] it was the pertinent German law that governed. In short, Philippine law finds no application herein as far as the family rights and obligations of the parties who are foreign nationals are concerned In Morisono v. Morisono,[8] we summarized the treatment of foreign divorce judgments in this jurisdiction, thus: The rules on divorce prevailing in this jurisdiction can be summed up as follows: first, Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce, and hence, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65677 4/10