REPUBLIC v.
CATUBAG ISSUES/ HELD:
G.R. No. 210580 | April 18, 2018 | Reyes, J.
TOPIC: General Concepts
He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by some other means than
mere allegations.
FACTS:
 Prior to their marriage in 2003, Ludyson Catubag and Shanaviv had
been cohabiting with each other as husband and wife. They had two
children.
 In 2001, Ludyson took work overseas while Shanaviv stayed in the
Philippines.
 On 26 June 2003, Ludyson and Shanaviv got married. Their marriage
was solemnized by Judge Tomas Lasam at the Office of the Municipal
Judge, Rizal, Cagayan.
 In April 2006, Ludyson and his family were able to acquire a housing
unit at Rio Grande Subdivision, Enrile, Cagayan. Ludyson then
returned overseas and maintained constant communication with his
family.
 On 12 July 2006, while still abroad, Ludyson was informed by his
relatives that Shanaviv left their house and never returned.
o Ludyson then took an emergency vacation and flew back to PH,
and proceeded to inquire about Shanaviv’s whereabouts from
their close friends and relatives. He travelled as far as Bicol
(where Shanaviv was born and raised), but he wasn’t able to
locate her.
o He also sought the help of Bombo Radyo Philippines to broadcast
the fact of his wife’s disappearance.
o He likewise searched various hospitals and funeral parlors in
Tuguegarao and Bicol, with no avail.
 On 04 May 2012, after almost 7 years of waiting, Ludyson filed with
the RTC a petition to have his wife declared presumptively dead.
 RTC: Granted the petition, declaring Shanaviv presumptively dead
only for the purpose that Ludyson may contract a subsequent
marriage, without prejudice to her reappearance.
 The Republic, through the OSG, filed a Rule 65 petition to the CA,
contending that Ludyson failed to establish a well-founded belief that
his wife was already dead.
 CA: Dismissed the petition because no MR was filed with the trial
court. MR of Republic was also denied.
 Thus, the Republic filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45.
(1) W/N the resort to a Rule 65 petition to challenge the RTC ruling was
proper - YES
 The nature of the proceeding determines the appropriate remedy or
remedies available. Hence, a party aggrieved by the action of a court
must first correctly determine the nature of the order, resolution, or
decision, in order to properly assail it.
 IN THE CASE: The relevant provisions of law are Articles 41, 238,
and 253 of the Family Code.
o Specifically, Article 41 provides that the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive
death of the absent spouse.
 Parties cannot seek reconsideration, nor appeal decisions in summary
judicial proceedings under the Family Code because by the express
mandate of law, judgments rendered thereunder are immediately final
and executory. Further, a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and may no longer be modified in any respect.
 However, in a petition for declaration of presumptive death,
parties may challenge the decision of the trial court through a
petition for ceriorari to question grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
 Hence, the Republic’s resort to a Rule 65 petition to the CA was
proper.
(2) W/N Ludyson complied with the essential requisites of a petition for
declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code -
NO
 There are FOUR REQUISITES under Article 41 of the Family Code
for a declaration of presumptive death to prosper:
o The absent spouse has been missing for 4 consecutive years, or
2 consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where there is
danger of death under the circumstances in Article 391 of NCC.
o The present spouse wishes to remarry
o The present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee
is dead
o The present spouse files for a summary proceeding for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee.
 The present spouse has the burden of proving that all these
requisites are present.
o IN THE CASE: The first, second, and fourth requisites have been
complied with. Hence, the existence of the third requisite needs
to be resolved.
 In Republic v. Cantor, the Court pointed out that “well-founded o Only the act of broadcasting his wife’s alleged disappearance
belief” has no exact definition under the law, and depends on the through Bombo Radyo was corroborated. However, this comes
circumstances of each particular case. nowhere close to establishing a well-founded belief that Shanaviv
 However, in Republic v. Orcelino-Villanueva, the Court provided that has already passed away.
such belief must result from diligent and reasonable efforts to o To accept such bare allegations would be to apply a liberal
locate the absent spouse, and that he/she believes that under the approach in complying with the requisites of establishing a well-
circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. founded belief that the missing spouse is dead, which would, in
o Such diligence entails an active effort on the part of the present turn, allow easy circumvention. This would defeat the State’s
spouse to locate the missing one. policy of protecting and strengthening the institution of marriage.
o The mere absence of a spouse (even beyond the period required
by law), lack of any news that the absent spouse is still alive, mere
failure to communicate, or general presumption of absence under DISPOSITIVE:
the NCC will not suffice. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
o “Well-founded belief” can only be discharged upon a showing of
proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain
the absent spouse’s whereabouts, and more importantly, whether
he/she is still alive.
 The Court cited a line of cases showing circumstances which do not
meet the standard of a well-founded belief:
o In Republic v. Granada, the Court held that the mere act of
inquiring from relatives falls short of the diligence required by law.
o In Republic v. Cantor, the Court noted that the efforts of the
present spouse in searching for her absent spouse were passive
and insincere.
o In Republic v. Orcelino-Villanueva, the Court noted that the
present spouse’s claim of making diligent search consisted of
bare assertions without any corroborative evidence on record.
 Applying these guidelines, the Court held that Ludyson’s efforts
falls short of the degree of diligence required by jurisprudence,
and were thus merely passive:
o First, Ludyson failed to present any of the alleged friends and
relatives from whom he inquired about his wife’s whereabouts, to
corroborate these “inquiries”.
 The failure to present any of the persons from whom inquiries
were allegedly made tends to belie a claim of diligent search.
o Second, Ludyson also did not seek the help of other concerned
government agencies (local police and the NBI).
 Absent efforts to employ the help of local authorities, the
present spouse cannot be said to have actively and diligently
searched for the absent spouse.
o Finally, aside from the certification of Bombo Radyo’s manager,
Ludyson bases his well-founded belief on bare assertions,
uncorroborated by any kind of evidence, that he exercised earnest
efforts in looking for his wife.
 He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by some other
means than mere allegations.