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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187512)

Key Dates

Marriage of parties: 3 March 1993.
Cyrus left for Taiwan: May 1994.
Petition for declaration of presumptive death filed by Yolanda after nine years of absence (docketed Sp. Proc. No. 2002-0530).
RTC Decision declaring Cyrus presumptively dead: 7 February 2005.
OSG filed Motion for Reconsideration: 10 March 2005 (denied 29 June 2007).
Notice of Appeal filed by Republic to CA (date not specified in prompt).
CA Resolution dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction: 23 January 2009; denial of reconsideration: 3 April 2009.
Supreme Court Decision under review: 13 June 2012 (use of 1987 Constitution as governing constitution).

Applicable Law and Authorities Relied Upon

Family Code provisions: Article 41 (declaration of presumptive death for remarriage), Article 238 (procedural rules for summary proceedings), Article 247 (judgment immediately final and executory), Article 253 (application of summary proceeding rules to Article 41).
Relevant case law cited in the decision: Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino; Republic v. Jomoc; Republic v. Tango; Republic v. Nolasco; United States v. Biasbas; Republic v. Court of Appeals and Alegro; Chan-Tan v. Tan.
Procedural rules referenced: Rules of Court provisions regarding appeals (notably Rule 41/Rule 72 distinctions and Rule 65 certiorari; Rule 45 review to the Supreme Court).

Procedural Posture

Yolanda filed a summary proceeding under Article 41 of the Family Code seeking a declaration that her absent husband, Cyrus, be presumed dead to permit remarriage. The RTC granted the petition. The Republic, through the OSG, sought reconsideration and subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals. Yolanda moved to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, arguing Article 41 petitions are summary proceedings whose judgments are immediately final and executory and therefore not appealable by ordinary appeal. The CA granted the motion to dismiss and denied reconsideration; the Republic then filed the present Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented — Appealability of RTC Decision in Summary Proceeding

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic’s appeal on the ground that the RTC’s decision in a summary proceeding under Article 41 of the Family Code is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties and thus not subject to ordinary appeal.

Analysis — Appealability and Proper Remedy

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The Court analyzed Articles 41, 238, 247 and 253 of the Family Code and concluded that a petition under Article 41 is a summary proceeding governed by Title XI of the Family Code. Article 247 expressly provides that judgments in summary proceedings "shall be immediately final and executory." Article 253 makes the summary rules applicable to Article 41 petitions. Consistent case law (notably Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino and Republic v. Tango) was examined: Bermudez-Lorino declared it erroneous to file an ordinary notice of appeal from an RTC judgment in an Article 41 summary proceeding because such judgments become immediately final and executory; Tango later settled that appeals by ordinary notice are not available in these summary proceedings, and that the proper remedy against grave abuse of discretion is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Appeals (with review to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 from a CA decision). The Court therefore held that the CA correctly dismissed the Republic’s notice of appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue Presented — Merits: Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish “Well‑Founded Belief”

Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s grant of the petition on the merits, i.e., whether Yolanda proved the statutory requirement under Article 41 that she had a well‑founded belief that her absent spouse was already dead.

Analysis — Substantive Proof Required Under Article 41

The decision summarizes controlling standards from prior cases: the Family Code’s Article 41 imposes stricter requirements than Article 83 of the Civil Code; Article 41 requires (1) absence for four consecutive years (two if disappearance occurred under circumstances of danger of death per Civil Code Article 391), (2) the present spouse’s desire to remarry, (3) a well‑founded belief that the absentee is dead, and (4) filing of the summary proceeding. The Court cited Nolasco, Biasbas and Alegro for the evidentiary standard of "well‑founded belief." That belief must arise from proper and honest inquiries and efforts to ascertain the absentee’s whereabouts and whether he is alive. Factors include inquiries made before and after disappearance and any circumstantial evidence elucidating motives, habits, attachments, and likely conduct. Biasbas is invoked to show the necessity of due diligence; in earlier cases parties failed where only suspicion based on absence was shown.

Application to the Present Case on Merits

The Republic argued that Yolanda did not exercise adequate diligence: her brother’s testimony about inquiries to Cyrus’s relatives lacked corroboration; Yolanda did not seek assistance from Taiwanese or Philippine government offices, consular channels, mass media or other reasonable methods to locate Cyrus, and she offered no explanation for these omissions. The Supreme Court acknowledged these deficiencies but declined to grant relief on the merits because the RTC judgment had become immediately final and executory under the Family Code and therefore immutable. The Court emphasized the settled rule that a final and executory judgment cannot be modified or reversed, even if erroneous in fact or law. Consequently, although the Republic’s substantive arguments on insufficient diligence were well‑taken, the procedural p

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187512)

Title, Citation and Court Panel

Case title as printed in the source: "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. YOLANDA CADACIO GRANADA, RESPONDENT."
Report citation: 687 Phil. 403, Second Division, G.R. No. 187512, June 13, 2012.
Decision authored by Justice SERENO.
Justices Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Perez, and Reyes concurred.
The Court of Appeals decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 90165) that was reviewed was penned by Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Normandie B. Pizarro (Rollo, pp. 30–33).

Procedural Posture

This matter is a Rule 45 Petition seeking reversal of two Court of Appeals Resolutions dated 23 January 2009 and 3 April 2009, which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s grant of a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death.
The underlying case was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 85, Lipa City, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 2002-0530.
The RTC rendered a Decision declaring the absentee presumptively dead on 7 February 2005.
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 10 March 2005; the RTC denied the motion by Order dated 29 June 2007.
The Republic filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals; respondent moved to dismiss for lack of CA jurisdiction on the ground that the RTC judgment in a summary proceeding under Article 41 is immediately final and executory.
The Court of Appeals granted the Motion to Dismiss in its 23 January 2009 Resolution and denied reconsideration in its 3 April 2009 Resolution.
The present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was filed with the Supreme Court to challenge the CA Resolutions.

Facts

In May 1991, Yolanda Cadacio met Cyrus Granada at Sumida Electric Philippines in Parañaque where both were employed.
Cyrus and Yolanda married at the Manila City Hall on 3 March 1993.
The marriage produced one child, Cyborg Dean Cadacio Granada.
In May 1994, Sumida Electric Philippines closed and Cyrus went to Taiwan to seek employment.
Yolanda claims she received no communication from Cyrus after he left and that efforts to locate him were unsuccessful.
Yolanda’s brother testified that he asked Cyrus’s relatives about Cyrus’s whereabouts with no success; those relatives were not presented to corroborate the testimony.
After nine (9) years of waiting, Yolanda filed a Petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively dead for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic’s Notice of Appeal on the ground that the RTC decision in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties and therefore not subject to ordinary appeal.
Whether the Court of Appeals 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 respondent presented — specifically whether respondent proved a well‑founded belief that the absentee spouse was already dead.

Relevant Statutory Provisions Cited

Family Code, Article 41:
- Requires prior spouse to have been absent for four consecutive years (or two years where disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under Article 391, Civil Code) and that the spouse present have a well‑founded belief that the absentee is dead; for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death.
Family Code, Title XI — "Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law":
- Article 238: Procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases requiring summary court proceedings; such cases shall be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules.
- Article 247: The judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory.
- Article 253: Rules in Chapters 2 and 3 shall likewise govern summary proceedings filed under Articles 41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124 and 217 insofar as applicable.
Civil Code, Article 391 referenced as the standard for situations involving danger of death; Civil Code Article 83 referenced for comparative purposes.

Prior Jurisprudence Relied Upon by the Court

Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino, 489 Phil. 761 (2005): Held that judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory per Article 247 and that filing an ordinary notice of appeal was erroneous; CA acquired no jurisdiction over such appeals.
Republic v. Jomoc, 497 Phil. 528 (2005): Clarified that a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 is a summary proceeding (not a special proceeding) and discussed procedural consequences regarding record on appeal; noted by parties and discussed by the Court in relation to Bermudez-Lorino.
Republic v. Tango, G.R. No. 161062, 31 July 2009, 594 SCRA 560: Settled the rule on appeals from judgments i