Title
Republic vs. Catubag
Case
G.R. No. 210580
Decision Date
Apr 18, 2018
Petitioner challenged CA's dismissal of certiorari petition, contesting RTC's declaration of spouse as presumptively dead; SC ruled private respondent failed to prove "well-founded belief" of death.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172203)

Facts of the Case

Prior to official marriage in 2003, Ludyson and Shanaviv cohabited and had two children born in 2000 and 2001. Ludyson worked overseas starting in 2001, while Shanaviv remained in the Philippines to care for their children. In April 2006, the family acquired a housing unit in Rio del Grande Subdivision, Enrile, Cagayan, but Shanaviv disappeared in July 2006 and never returned. Despite multiple efforts by private respondent, including a personal search in Cagayan and Bicol, inquiries from relatives and friends, public broadcasting on Bombo Radyo to locate Shanaviv, and searches in hospitals and funeral parlors, Shanaviv could not be found. After nearly seven years of absence, Ludyson filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to have Shanaviv declared presumptively dead.

Procedural Posture

The RTC of Tuao, Cagayan, Branch 11 granted the petition on May 23, 2013, declaring Shanaviv presumptively dead to allow Ludyson the right to remarry without prejudice to Shanaviv’s possible reappearance. The Republic of the Philippines challenged this decision by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 at the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that the private respondent failed to establish a well-founded belief that Shanaviv was dead. The CA dismissed this petition due to the petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, a procedural requirement the CA deemed fatal. A motion for reconsideration filed subsequently was also denied. Thus, the petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner’s resort to a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was proper to challenge the RTC’s decision declaring presumptive death.
  2. Whether the private respondent complied with the essential requisites of Article 41 of the Family Code to justify the declaration of presumptive death.

Applicable Law and Summary Proceedings under the Family Code

Article 41 of the Family Code governs the summary proceedings for declaration of presumptive death. The provisions require that a person whose spouse has been absent for four consecutive years (or two years under circumstances involving danger of death per Civil Code Article 391) may be declared presumptively dead to enable remarriage. Articles 238 and 253 of the Family Code mandate an expeditious summary procedure, explicitly providing that judgments are immediately final and executory. Consequently, no appeal or motion for reconsideration is allowed after such decisions; the only remedy is via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, limited to addressing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Propriety of the Petition for Certiorari

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s use of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the RTC decision was proper, as prior remedies like motions for reconsideration or appeals are precluded under the summary proceeding framework for presumed death cases. This ruling aligns with prior jurisprudence, notably Republic v. SareAogon, Jr., emphasizing limited but specific avenues of relief.

Requisites for Declaration of Presumptive Death

Jurisprudence consistently imposes four essential requisites under Article 41 of the Family Code for declaring presumptive death:

  1. The absent spouse has been missing for at least four consecutive years (two years if disappearance involved danger of death).
  2. The present spouse’s desire to remarry.
  3. A well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead.
  4. Filing of a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death with the court.

The burden is on the petitioner, here the private respondent, to substantiate all requisites, especially the “well-founded belief” of death.

Standard for “Well-Founded Belief” of Death

The Court explained that the “well-founded belief” does not have a fixed legal definition; it depends on the specific circumstances, but must be supported by diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the missing spouse. Mere passive attempts or uncorroborated inquiries are insufficient. The search must be active, involving, for example, reporting the disappearance to authorities, seeking help from police or investigative agencies, and presenting credible evidence of efforts conducted.

Jurisprudential Guidelines on Diligence

The Court reaffirmed previous rulings (Republic v. Cantor, Republic v. Granada, Republic v. Orcelino-Villanueva) which clarified that:

  • Inquiries limited to relatives or friends without corroboration are unreliable.
  • Absence of reporting to police or failure to seek government agency assistance shows lack of diligence.
  • Uncorroborated assertions of search efforts cannot establish a well-founded belief.
  • The Court must be cautious not to adopt a liberal approach that would undermine the sanctity of marriage, allowing easy circumvention through presumptive death petitions when a spouse merely abandons the family.

Analysis of Private Respondent’s Search Efforts

In the subject case, the private respondent did take some steps such as:

  • Taking an emergency leave from overseas to personally search for Shanaviv.
  • Seeking information from friends and relatives in both their residence and Shanaviv’s hometown.
  • Broadcasting his wife’s disappearance on Bombo Radyo Philippines.
  • Searching hospitals and funeral parlors.

However, the Court found the efforts lacked the required strict diligence because:

  • Private respondent failed to present witnesses or evidence corroborating the inquiries made from friends and relatives.
  • The record lacked any effort to report Shanaviv’s disappe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms