G.R. No. 163604 - Republic vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 163604)

Applicable Laws and Legal Provisions

The applicable law is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, together with the Family Code of the Philippines, particularly Article 41. The Revised Rules of Court, including Rules 41, 46, 72, and 109, and the Civil Code provisions on presumption of death (Article 390) are also relevant. Article 41 addresses the summary proceeding required for declaring an absentee spouse presumptively dead for the purpose of contracting a subsequent valid marriage, while Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs appeals from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.

Trial Court's Declaration of Presumptive Death

On September 29, 1999, the Ormoc City Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, presided over by Judge Fortunito L. Madrona, granted Apolinaria Jomoc’s petition and declared the absent spouse presumptively dead. The trial court anchored its ruling on Article 41, paragraph 2, which mandates that when a spouse has been absent for at least four consecutive years, a summary proceeding must be instituted to declare presumptive death to permit subsequent marriage, although subject to the absent spouse’s possible reappearance.

Procedural Issues on Appeal and Notice of Appeal

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought to appeal the trial court’s order by filing a Notice of Appeal. However, the trial court disapproved the Notice of Appeal in its November 22, 1999 order due to the absence of the required record on appeal as mandated under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the case a special proceeding. The Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on January 13, 2000.

Petition for Certiorari Before the Court of Appeals

The Republic filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals contending that the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is not a special proceeding requiring the filing of a record on appeal but rather an ordinary action perfected by a mere notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on May 5, 2004, citing procedural lapses such as the failure to attach certified true copies of the orders being assailed, and substantively ruled that the case was a special proceeding under the Rules of Court, thereby requiring a record on appeal.

Distinction Between Civil Action and Special Proceeding

The Court of Appeals emphasized the distinction under Section 3 of Rule 1 of the Rules of Court: a civil action involves enforcement or protection of a right or prevention or redress of a wrong, whereas a special proceeding seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. The petition for presumptive death, aiming only to declare a status (the death of an absentee spouse), was classified as a special proceeding, necessitating compliance with the procedural requisites, including filing a record on appeal.

Petitioner's Argument and Supreme Court's Resolution on Procedural Classification

The Republic argued that under Rule 109 of the Revised Rules of Court, which lists cases requiring a record on appeal due to multiple or separate appeals, the petition for presumptive death is not included; thus, only a notice of appeal is sufficient. The Supreme Court examined the General Provisions on Special Proceedings (Rule 72) which expressly include the "Declaration of absence and death" as a subject matter of special proceedings. Also, Article 41 of the Family Code explicitly characterizes the declaration of presumptive death for contracting a subsequent marriage as a summary proceeding, a distinct procedural mechanism under Title XI of the Family Code requiring expedited disposition and summary rules.

The Nature of the Proceeding as Summary, Not Special Under the Rules of Court

The Supreme Court held that the petition filed by Apolinaria Jomoc constitutes a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court. The Family Code provides its own procedural rules under Title XI, emphasizing expeditious resolutions without strict adherence to technical rules. Article 254 of the Family Code repeals conflicting laws, including provisions of the Rules of Court, insofar as they relate to these summary proceedings. Therefore, the procedural rules of the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 163604)

Case Background and Procedural History

The case involves a petition filed by Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc for the declaration of presumptive death of her absentee spouse, Clemente P. Jomoc, who had been absent for nine years.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ormoc City, Branch 35, granted the petition on September 29, 1999, based on the Commissioner’s Report, declaring Clemente Jomoc presumptively dead.
The trial judge cited Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Family Code as the basis, which allows a spouse to petition for declaration of presumptive death to contract a valid subsequent marriage if the other spouse has been absent for at least four consecutive years.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), attempted to appeal the RTC order by filing a Notice of Appeal.
The RTC disapproved the Notice of Appeal on November 22, 1999, for failure to file and serve a record on appeal as required by Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable to special proceedings.
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Republic was denied by the RTC on January 13, 2000.
Thereafter, the Republic filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 is not a special proceeding requiring a record on appeal, and that a Notice of Appeal alone suffices.

Issues Presented

Whether a petition for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code constitutes a special proceeding or an ordinary civil action.
Whether the filing of a Notice of Appeal alone suffices to perfect an appeal in such case or if filing and serving a record on appeal is mandatory.
Whether procedural lapses by the Republic, such as failure to include necessary documents in the petition to the CA, fatally affect the appeal’s validity.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA denied the petition for certiorari on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Procedurally, the CA noted the failure to attach a certified true copy of the RTC’s order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, as required by Sec. 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court.
The petition also questioned the RTC order declaring presumptive death without including a copy in the record.
Substantively, the CA ruled the petition to declare presumptive death is a special proceeding under Rule 1, Section 3(c) of the Rules of Court because it seeks to establish a particular fact or status rather than enforce a right or redress a wrong.
The CA held that under Section 2(a), Rule 41, the appeal in special proceedings requires, aside from Notice of Appeal, the filing and serving of a record on appeal.
The CA affirmed that the RTC correctly disapproved the Notice of Appeal for non-compliance with these procedural requirements.
The CA further rejected the Republic’s contention that the petition is an ordinary action under Rule 109 enumeration of cases requiring records on appeal.

Supreme Court Ruling and Reasoning

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA decision.
The Court emphasized the distincti