G.R. No. 210580 - Republic vs. Catubag

The Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to challenge:

The Court of Appeals (CA) Resolutions dated September 3, 2013, and December 6, 2013, which denied petitioner’s petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration;
The Decision dated May 23, 2013, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuao, Cagayan, Branch 11, declaring Shanaviv G. Alvarez-Catubag (private respondent's spouse) presumptively dead.

Private respondent and Shanaviv cohabited as husband and wife before their formal marriage in 2003.
They had two children: Mark Bryan A. Catubag (born May 18, 2000) and Rose Mae A. Catubag (born May 21, 2001).
In 2001, private respondent worked overseas to support the family; Shanaviv stayed in the Philippines to care for their children.
The couple married on June 26, 2003, in Rizal, Cagayan, solemnized by Judge Tomas D. Lasam.

The family acquired a house in Rio del Grande Subdivision, Enrile Cagayan in April 2006.
Private respondent continued working overseas while maintaining contact with his family.
On July 12, 2006, private respondent was informed that Shanaviv left their house and never returned. His relatives took care of the children.
He returned to the Philippines on emergency leave, searched extensively in Cagayan and Bicol (Shanaviv’s birthplace) but could not locate her.
Private respondent sought help from one of the radio networks, Bombo Radyo Philippines, to broadcast Shanaviv’s disappearance and conducted searches in hospitals and funeral parlors in Tuguegarao and Bicol, without success.

After almost seven years (May 4, 2012), private respondent filed a petition with the RTC to declare Shanaviv presumptively dead.
On May 23, 2013, the RTC granted the petition, allowing private respondent to remarry without prejudice to Shanaviv’s possible reappearance.
On August 5, 2013, the petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA to challenge the RTC decision, alleging private respondent failed to establish a well-founded belief that Shanaviv was dead.
The CA dismissed the petition on September 3, 2013, due to petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration.
On September 18, 2013, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied on December 6, 2013.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Legality of CA’s dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground that:

Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration before the RTC;
Petitioner failed to attach copies of all pertinent and relevant documents and pleadings.

Whether private respondent has established a well-founded belief that Shanaviv is presumptively dead under Article 41 of the Family Code.