G.R. No. 179943 - People vs. De Leon y Homo

Respondent Jose B. SareAogon, Jr. filed a petition on November 4, 2008, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamiz City-Branch 15 seeking the declaration of presumptive death of his wife, Netchie S. SareAogon.
The petition was filed in anticipation of filing another marriage under Article 41 of the Family Code, which necessitates that the absent spouse be declared presumptively dead.

An Amended Order dated February 11, 2009, set the petition for an initial hearing on April 16, 2009, and directed publication of the Order in newspapers of general circulation in Tangub, Ozamiz, and Oroquieta in Misamis Occidental.
No oppositions were raised against the petition, allowing the trial to proceed without contest.

Jose testified that after marrying Netchie on August 10, 1996, in Manila, they lived together for only one month before they were separated due to his overseas employment as a seaman and her employment as a domestic helper in Hong Kong.
Within three months of separation, there was no communication from Netchie, and despite his attempts—such as contacting her parents and later her relatives and friends—her whereabouts remained unknown.
His testimony was corroborated by his older brother, Joel SareAogon, and by Netchie’s aunt, Consuelo Sande, both attesting that the couple lived together briefly before parting ways and that no information regarding Netchie’s location was available.

On January 31, 2011, the RTC rendered a decision finding that Jose had established by a preponderance of evidence that his wife had been absent for more than four years, satisfying the statutory requirement.
The RTC declared Netchie presumptively dead for purposes of remarrying, thereby granting Jose the relief he sought under Article 41 of the Family Code.

On April 19, 2011, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the RTC’s decision by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
In its October 24, 2011 decision, the CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the RTC’s judgment was immediately final and executory; the CA held that a petition for certiorari was not the appropriate remedy since the RTC had rendered its decision after a summary proceeding.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic’s Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65, given that the RTC’s judgment on the declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory, and whether petition for certiorari is indeed the proper remedy to challenge such a decision.

Whether respondent Jose’s efforts in locating his missing wife were sufficient to support a “well-founded belief” that she was already dead, as required by Article 41 of the Family Code.
Whether the absence of more vigorous or formal investigative measures (such as enlisting assistance from government agencies or filing reports) undermined the satisfaction of the well-founded belief standard.