G.R. No. 187512 - Republic vs. Granada

In May 1991, respondent Yolanda Cadacio Granada met Cyrus Granada at Sumida Electric Philippines, where both were employed.
The couple subsequently married on March 3, 1993, at the Manila City Hall.
Their marriage resulted in the birth of a son, Cyborg Dean Cadacio Granada.

In May 1994, following the closure of Sumida Electric Philippines, Cyrus left for Taiwan to seek employment.
Thereafter, Yolanda did not receive any communication from her husband, despite her efforts to locate him.
Testimony from Yolanda’s brother confirmed that inquiries were made among Cyrus’ relatives, but no information regarding his whereabouts was obtained.
After a lapse of nine years of his absence, Yolanda filed a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death of her absent spouse.

The Petition was raffled to Presiding Judge Avelino Demetria of RTC Branch 85, Lipa City, and was docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 2002-0530.
On February 7, 2005, the RTC rendered a decision declaring Cyrus presumptively dead.
On March 10, 2005, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging the RTC’s decision on the basis that Yolanda had not shown sufficient effort in locating her husband.
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration in an Order dated June 29, 2007.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 41, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Court.
Yolanda then filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that her Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death was a summary judicial proceeding under Article 41 of the Family Code, rendering the judgment immediately final and executory and, therefore, not appealable.
The CA, in its Resolution dated January 23, 2009, granted Yolanda’s Motion to Dismiss on the basis of lack of appellate jurisdiction, citing Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA in a Resolution dated April 3, 2009.

The proceedings were governed by Article 41 of the Family Code, which allows for a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse for purposes of remarriage.
Provisions under Title XI of the Family Code—specifically Articles 238, 247, and 253—reinforce that judgments rendered in summary proceedings are immediately final and executory.

Whether the CA seriously erred in dismissing the Petition on the ground that the RTC’s decision in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties and is not subject to ordinary appeal.

Whether the CA seriously erred in affirming the RTC’s grant of the Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death under Article 41 of the Family Code based on the evidence adduced by Yolanda to establish her well-founded belief that her absent spouse was already dead.