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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187512)

Factual Background

In May 1991, YOLANDA CADACIO GRANADA met Cyrus Granada at Sumida Electric Philippines where both worked. They married on 3 March 1993 and had a son, Cyborg Dean Cadacio Granada. In May 1994, after Sumida closed, Cyrus left for Taiwan to seek employment. Thereafter, Yolanda averred that she received no communication from Cyrus despite efforts to locate him. Her brother testified to making inquiries of Cyrus’s relatives without success. After approximately nine years without news, Yolanda filed a petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively dead for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage.

Trial Court Proceedings

The petition was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 2002-0530 before Presiding Judge Avelino Demetria of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Lipa City. On 7 February 2005, the RTC rendered a decision declaring Cyrus presumptively dead. On 10 March 2005, the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a motion for reconsideration attacking Yolanda’s evidence and asserted lack of diligent search. The RTC denied the motion by order dated 29 June 2007. The Republic then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, presumably invoking Rule 41, Sec. 2(a), Rules of Court.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Respondent moved to dismiss the purported appeal for lack of jurisdiction, contending that a petition under Article 41, Family Code is a summary proceeding and that the RTC judgment was immediately final and executory. In its 23 January 2009 resolution, the Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, relying on Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino. The CA denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated 3 April 2009. The Republic then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court identified two issues: whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic’s appeal on the ground that an RTC judgment in a summary proceeding under Article 41, Family Code is immediately final and nonappealable; and whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s grant of the petition on the merits, specifically whether respondent proved a well-founded belief that the absentee was dead.

Governing Law on Summary Proceedings

The Court examined Article 41, Family Code, which conditions the validity of a subsequent marriage on the absence of the prior spouse for four consecutive years, or two years where disappearance occurred under circumstances set forth in Article 391, Civil Code, and requires that the present spouse institute a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death. The Court noted that Title XI of the Family Code governs summary judicial proceedings and that Article 238 directs that procedural rules in that Title shall apply and that such cases be decided expeditiously. Article 247 provides that the judgment in summary proceedings “shall be immediately final and executory,” and Article 253 extends the rules of Chapters 2 and 3 to proceedings under Article 41 insofar as applicable.

Supreme Court Ruling on Appealability

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41, Family Code is a summary proceeding and that by express statutory provision (Article 247) the trial court’s judgment is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties. Consequently, an ordinary appeal by notice of appeal was not the proper vehicle to challenge the RTC’s judgment in that summary proceeding.

Precedents and Doctrinal Clarification

The Court analyzed earlier decisions. It observed that Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino had explained that ordinary appeals were improper in such summary proceedings and that the CA thereby lacked jurisdiction when it entertained an ordinary appeal. The Republic argued that Republic v. Jomoc modified that rule, but the Court found Jomoc did not displace Bermudez-Lorino’s holding on appealability. The Court relied on Republic v. Tango as settling the rule: judgments in Family Code summary proceedings are immediately final and executory; the proper remedy for an aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and thereafter a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court from the CA decision.

Petitioner's Merits Argument on Diligence

The Republic urged that respondent failed to prove a well-founded belief of death as required by Article 41, Family Code. The Court summarized controlling authorities, notably Republic v. Nolasco, which recognized that Article 41 imposes more stringent requirements than Article 83 of the Civil Code and articulated four requisites for presumptive death under the Family Code: (1) prescribed period of absence; (2) present spouse’s wish to remarry; (3) a well-founded belief of death; and (4) institution of the summary proceeding

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187512)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Republic of the Philippines filed a Rule 45 Petition seeking reversal of Court of Appeals Resolutions dated 23 January 2009 and 3 April 2009.
Yolanda Cadacio Granada was the respondent who filed a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death under Article 41, Family Code.
The petition below was docketed as Special Proceeding No. 2002-0530 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Lipa City.
The RTC rendered a Decision on 7 February 2005 declaring the absent spouse presumptively dead and denied the Republic's Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated 29 June 2007.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on 23 January 2009, and denied reconsideration on 3 April 2009.
The Supreme Court, through Justice Sereno, affirmed the CA Resolutions and denied the Rule 45 Petition.

Key Factual Allegations

Yolanda Cadacio Granada met and married Cyrus Granada on 3 March 1993 and they had a son named Cyborg Dean Cadacio Granada.
Cyrus left for Taiwan to seek employment in May 1994 after the closure of Sumida Electric Philippines.
Yolanda asserted that she received no communication from Cyrus thereafter despite efforts to locate him.
Yolanda's brother testified that he inquired of Cyrus's relatives about Cyrus's whereabouts but did not produce those relatives as witnesses.
After nine years of waiting, Yolanda filed the Petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively dead for the purpose of remarriage.

Procedural History

The RTC granted Yolanda's Petition on 7 February 2005 and the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 10 March 2005.
The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration by Order dated 29 June 2007 and the Republic filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Yolanda moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the RTC judgment in a summary proceeding was immediately final and executory.
The CA granted the Motion to Dismiss in its 23 January 2009 Resolution and denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration on 3 April 2009.
The Republic elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a Rule 45 Petition.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Notice of Appeal on the ground that the RTC judgment in a summary proceeding under Article 41, Family Code is immediately final and executory 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 on the factual ground that Yolanda had proven a well-founded belief that the absentee was dead.

Statutory Framework

Article 41, Family Code governs declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse for purposes of contracting a subsequent marriage.
Article 238, Family Code provides that proce