CLASS NO.

20 1D PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUDYSON C. CATUBAG

G.R. No. 210580 | April 18, 2018

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Prevailing jurisprudence has time and again pointed out four (4) requisites under Article 41 of the Family Code that
must be complied with for the declaration of presumptive death to prosper: first, the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive
years, or two consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in
Article 391 of the Civil Code. Second, the present spouse wishes to remarry. Third, the present spouse has a well- founded belief
that the absentee is dead. Fourth, the present spouse files for a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee.

REYES, JR., J.:

FACTS: Prior to the celebration of their marriage in 2003, Ludyson and Shanaviv had been cohabiting with
each other as husband and wife. Their union begot two (2) children. In 2001, Ludyson took work overseas
while Shanaviv stayed behind in the Philippines to tend to the needs of their children. On June 26, 2003, private
respondent and Shanaviv tied the knot in Rizal, Cagayan. Thereafter, private respondent returned overseas to
continue his work. While abroad, he maintained constant communication with his family.

On July 12, 2006, while working abroad, Ludyson was informed by his relatives that Shanaviv left their house
and never returned. In the meantime, his relatives took care of the children. Ludyson took an emergency
vacation and flew back home. He looked for his wife in Enrile Cagayan, but to no avail. He then proceeded to
inquire about Shanaviv's whereabouts from their close friends and relatives, but they too could offer no help.
Ludyson travelled as far as Bicol, where Shanaviv was born and raised, but he still could not locate her. Ludyson
subsequently sought the help of Bombo Radyo Philippines, one of the more well-known radio networks in the
Philippines, to broadcast the fact of his wife's disappearance. Moreover, he searched various hospitals and
funeral parlors in Tuguegarao and in Bicol, with no avail.

After almost seven years of waiting, private respondent filed with the RTC a petition to have his wife declared
presumptively dead. The RTC rendered its Decision granting the Petition. Petitioner, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), elevated the judgment of the RTC to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner's main contention is that private respondent failed to establish a
"well-founded belief' that his missing wife was already dead. The CA dismissed the petition because no motion
for reconsideration was filed with the court a quo. The CA ruled that such defect was fatal and warranted the
immediate dismissal of the petition.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not petitioner's resort to a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the decision
of the RTC declaring Shanaviv presumptively dead was proper;
2. Whether or not private respondent complied with the essential requisites of a petition for declaration
of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code.

RULING

1. YES. Parties cannot seek reconsideration, nor appeal decisions in summary judicial proceedings under
the Family Code because by express mandate of law, judgments rendered thereunder are immediately final and
executory. Further, it is well settled in our laws and jurisprudence that a decision that has acquired finality
becomes immutable and unalterable. As such, it may no longer be modified in any respect even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court
that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.
While parties are precluded from filing a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal, in a petition for
declaration of presumptive death, they may challenge the decision of the court a quo through a petition for
certiorari to question grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

In Republic vs. Sarenogon, Jr., the Court outlined the legal remedies available in a summary proceeding for the
declaration of presumptive death. If aggrieved by the decision of the RTC, then filing with the CA a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 would be proper. Any subsequent decision by the CA may then be elevated to the
Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

2. NO. Prevailing jurisprudence has time and again pointed out four (4) requisites under Article 41 of the
Family Code that must be complied with for the declaration of presumptive death to prosper: first, the absent
spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two consecutive years if the disappearance occurred
where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in Article 391 of the Civil Code. Second, the
present spouse wishes to remarry. Third, the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead.
Fourth, the present spouse files for a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee. Notably, the records reveal that private respondent has complied with the first, second, and fourth
requisites. Thus, what remains to be resolved is whether or not private respondent successfully discharged the
burden of establishing a well-founded belief that his wife, Shanaviv, is dead.

Applying the standards discussed by the Court in Cantor, Granada, and Orcelino-Villanueva, the Court finds that
private respondent's efforts falls short of the degree of diligence required by jurisprudence for the following
reasons:

First, private respondent claims to have inquired about his missing wife's whereabouts from
both friends and relatives. Further, he claims to have carried out such inquiries in the place
where they lived and in the place where his wife was born and raised. However, private
respondent failed to present any of these alleged friends or relatives to corroborate these
"inquiries." Moreover, no explanation for such omission was given. As held in the previous
cases, failure to present any of the persons from whom inquiries were allegedly made tends to
belie a claim of a diligent search.
Second, private respondent did not seek the help of other concerned government agencies,
namely, the local police authorities and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). In
Cantor, the Court reasoned that while a finding of well-founded belief varies with the nature of
the situation, it would still be prudent for the present spouse to seek the aid of the authorities
in searching for the missing spouse. Absent such efforts to employ the help of local authorities,
the present spouse cannot be said to have actively and diligently searched for the absentee
spouse.
Finally, aside from the certification of Bombo Radyo's manager, private respondent bases his
"well-founded belief' on bare assertions that he exercised earnest efforts in looking for his wife.
Again, the present spouse's bare assertions, uncorroborated by any kind of evidence, falls short
of the diligence required to engender a well-founded belief that the absentee spouse is dead.

Taken together, the Court is of the view that private respondent's efforts in searching for his missing wife,
Shanaviv, are merely passive. Private respondent could have easily convinced the Court otherwise by providing
evidence which corroborated his "earnest-efforts." Yet, no explanation or justification was given for these
glaring omissions. Again, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by some other means than mere
allegations
 ESTRELLITA TADEO-MATIAS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 230751 | April 25, 2018

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

In our jurisdiction, a petition whose sole objective is to have a person declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code
is not regarded as a valid suit and no court has any authority to take cognizance of the same.

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS: Wilfredo N. Matias is a member of the Philippine Constabulary and was assigned in Arayat, Pampanga
since August 24, 1967. Wilfredo and petitioner Estrellita entered into a lawful marriage on January 7, 1968 in
Imbo, Anda, Pangasinan and put up their conjugal home in Tarlac City. Wilfredo continued to serve the
Philippines and on September 15, 1979, he set out from their conjugal home to again serve as a member of the
Philippine Constabulary. He never came back from his tour of duty in Arayat, Pampanga since 1979 and he
never made contact or communicated with the petitioner nor to his relatives. According to the service record
of Wilfredo issued by the National Police Commission, he was already declared missing since 1979.

Estrellita constantly pestered the then Philippine Constabulary for any news regarding Wilfredo, but the
Philippine Constabulary had no answer to his whereabouts, neither did they have any news of him going
AWOL, all they know was he was assigned to a place frequented by the New People's Army.

On April 10, 2012, petitioner Estrellita filed before the RTC of Tarlac City a petition for the declaration of
presumptive death of her husband, Wifredo. She filed the petition to claim for the benefits under P.D. No.
1683. One of the requirements to attain the claim of benefits is for a proof of death or at least declaration of
presumptive death by an Honorable Court.

A copy of the petition was then furnished to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Subsequently, the OSG
filed its notice of appearance on behalf of herein respondent Republic of the Philippines (Republic). The RTC
granted the petition. The Republic questioned the decision of the RTC via a petition for certiotrari. The CA
rendered a decision granting the certiorari petition of the Republic and setting aside the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not the appellate court is correct in setting aside the decision of the RTC declaring
Wilfredo presumptively dead
RULING
YES. The petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by the petitioner is not an authorized
suit and should have been dismissed by the RTC. The RTC's decision must, therefore, be set aside.
The petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by petitioner is not an action that would have
warranted the application of Article 41 of the FC. The presumption of death established therein is only
applicable for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage under the said law. Here, petitioner was
forthright that she was not seeking the declaration of the presumptive death Wilfredo as a prerequisite for
remarriage. In her petition for the declaration of presumptive death, petitioner categorically stated that the same
was filed "not for any other purpose but solely to claim for the benefit under P.D. No. 1638 as amended.
Given that her petition for the declaration of presumptive death was not filed for the purpose of remarriage,
petitioner was clearly relying on the presumption of death under either Article 390 or Article 391 of the Civil
Code as the basis of her petition.

Verily, the RTC's use of Article 41 of the FC as its basis in declaring the presumptive death of Wilfredo was
misleading and grossly improper. The petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by the petitioner
was based on the Civil Code, and not on Article 41 of the FC.
Since the petition filed by the petitioner merely seeks the declaration of presumptive death of Wilfredo under
the Civil Code, the RTC should have dismissed such petition outright. This is because, in our jurisdiction, a
petition whose sole objective is to have a person declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code is
not regarded as a valid suit and no court has any authority to take cognizance of the same.

Dissecting the rulings of Szatraw, Gue and Lukban collectively, we are able to ascertain the considerations why
a petition for declaration of presumptive death based on the Civil Code was disallowed in our jurisdiction, viz:

1. Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code merely express rules of evidence that only allow a
court or a tribunal to presume that a person is dead upon the establishment of certain facts.
2. Since Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code merely express rules of evidence, an action
brought exclusively to declare a person presumptively dead under either of the said articles
actually presents no actual controversy that a court could decide. In such action, there would be
no actual rights to be enforces, no wrong to be remedied nor any status to be established.
3. A judicial pronouncement declaring a person presumptively dead under Article 390 or Article
391 of the Civil Code, in an action exclusively based thereon, would never really become "final"
as the same only confirms that existence of a prima facie or disputable presumption. The
function of a court to render decisions that is supposed to be final and binding
between litigants is thereby compromised.
4. Moreove, a court action to declare a person presumptively dead under Articles 390 and 391
of the Civil Code would be unnecessary. The presumption in the said articles is already
established by law.

Verily, under prevailing case law, courts are without any authority to take cognizance of a petition that-like the
one filed by the petitioner in the case at bench-only seeks to have a person declared presumptively dead under
the Civil Code. Such a petition is not authorized by law. Hence, by acting upon and eventually granting the
petitioner's petition for the declaration of presumptive death, the RTC violated prevailing jurisprudence and
thereby committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA, therefore, was only correct in setting aside the RTC's
decision.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated November 28, 2016 and Resolution dated
March 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 129467 are AFFIRMED. The Court declares that
a judicial decision of a court of law that a person is presumptively dead is not requirement before the Philippine
Veterans' Affairs Office and the Armed Forces of the Philippines for their consideration.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE B. SAREÑOGON, JR., Respondent.
G. R. No. 199194
FEB. 10, 2016

A petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to
challenge a trial court's declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of The Family Code of
the Philippines.

Facts: November 4, 2008, respondent Jose B. Sareñogon, Jr. filed for a petition before the RTC of
Ozamis City branch 15 for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife, Netchie S. Sareñogon.
Jose testified that he first met Netchie in Clarin, Misamis Occidental in 1991. They got married
on August 10, 1996 in civil rites at the Manila City Hall. They cohabited for a month only because
Jose is a seaman while Netchie went to Hong Kong as a domestic helper. For three months, he did
not receive any communication from Netchie. He likewise had no idea about her whereabouts.
While still abroad, he tried to contact Netchie's parents but they have no news of Clarin as well.
He returned home after his contract expired. He asked Netchie's relatives and friends about her
whereabouts but they did not know as well. He presumed his wife was dead and filed a petition
for declaration of presumptive death because Netchie has been missing for a total of four years.
Jose's testimony was corroborated by his older brother Joel and Netchie's aunt, Consuelo Sande.
RTC - granted the petition stating that Jose had established by preponderance of evidence
that he is entitled to the relief prayed for under Article 41 of the Family Code. Netchie was missing
for four years already, reason enough to presume death.
The Office of the Solicitor Geeral elevated the judgement of the RTC to the CA via a petition
for certiorari under rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
CA - it held that the Republic used the wrong recourse by instituting a petition for certiorari.
The CA perceived no error in the RTC's judgement. The CA noted that the RTC properly caused
the publication of the Order setting the case for initial hearing. The CA essentially ruled that, "writ
of certiorari may not be used to correct a lower court’s evaluation of the evidence and factual
findings. In other words, it is not a remedy for mere errors of judgment, which are correctible by
an appeal." The CA then disposed of the case. Hence, this appeal
Republic argues that a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge an RTC's
immediately final and executory Decision on a presumptive death. The Republic also argues that
based on jurisprudence, Jose's alleged efforts of locating Netchie does not constitute a well-
founded belief because he failed to enlist assistance of relevant government agencies and that he
did not present proper witnesses and evidence to corroborate his claims.

Issue:
1. Whether or not a petition for review on certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the
decision of the RTC declaring Netchie Sareñogon's presumption of death.
2. Whether or not Jose Sareñogon's efforts in locating his missing wife constitute a "well-founded
belief" that his wife is probably dead.

Ruling:
1. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to question
the RTC’s Decision in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death. In the case
of Republic v. Bermudez it was that the RTC’s Decision on a Petition for declaration of
presumptive death pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code is immediately final and executory.
Thus, the CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a notice of appeal pertaining to such judgment and
that the correct remedy to challenge the RTC Decision was to institute a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65, and not a petition for review under Rule 45.
"In sum, under Article 41 of the Family Code, the losing party in a summary proceeding for the
declaration of presumptive death may file a petition for certiorari with the CA on the ground that,
in rendering judgment thereon, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction. From the Decision of the CA, the aggrieved party may elevate the matter to
this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2. The "well-founded belief" requisite under Article 41 of the Family Code is complied with only
upon a showing that sincere honest-to-goodness efforts had indeed been made to ascertain
whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead. Given the Court’s imposition of "strict
standard" in a petition for a declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code,
it must follow that there was no basis at all for the RTC’s finding that Jose’s Petition complied with
the requisites of Article 41 of the Family Code, in reference to the "well-founded belief" standard.
If anything, Jose’s pathetically anemic efforts to locate the missing Netchie are notches below the
required degree of stringent diligence prescribed by jurisprudence. For, aside from his bare claims
that he had inquired from alleged friends and relatives as to Netchie’s whereabouts, Jose did not
call to the witness stand specific individuals or persons whom he allegedly saw or met in the
course of his search or quest for the allegedly missing Netchie. Neither did he prove that he sought
the assistance of the pertinent government agencies as well as the media. Nor did he show that
he undertook a thorough, determined and unflagging search for Netchie, say for at least two years
(and what those years were), and naming the particular places, provinces, cities, barangays or
municipalities that he visited, or went to, and identifying the specific persons he interviewed or
talked to in the course of his search.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is Granted and the Decision of CA reversed and set aside.