G.R. No. 219185 - Republic vs. Ponce-Pilapil

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219185)

Petitioner (before the Supreme Court)

The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, assailed the RTC order declaring Agapito presumptively dead and sought relief by certiorari before the Court of Appeals and, upon denial there, by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Respondent (petitioning spouse below)

Josephine Ponce‑Pilapil filed the summary proceeding in the RTC seeking declaration of presumptive death of her husband so she could remarry. She offered testimonial evidence and a witness who assisted in her attempts to contact the absentee’s family.

Key Dates

Marriage: June 5, 2000. Disappearance: a few months after marriage (sometime in November 2000). RTC Order declaring presumptive death: February 27, 2007. CA Decision dismissing OSG’s certiorari: May 31, 2012; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: June 26, 2015. Supreme Court decision reviewing the matter: 2020 (thus governed by the 1987 Constitution and applicable post‑1987 statutes and jurisprudence).

Applicable Law and Doctrines

Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable to cases decided in or after 1990). Procedural vehicle: Rule 65 certiorari under the Rules of Court (certiorari is limited to questions of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion). Substantive law: Article 41 of the Family Code (conditions for remarriage when a prior spouse is absent) in relation to Article 253 (and Article 391 for the two‑year exception) of the Civil Code. Controlling jurisprudential standards include the requirement of a “well‑founded belief” in the absentee’s death and the need for diligent, active efforts to locate the absentee as elaborated in Republic v. Orcelino‑Villanueva and other precedents cited by the Court.

Procedural History

The RTC set the petition for hearing, ordered publication, and after trial granted Josephine’s petition under Article 41 declaring Agapito presumptively dead. The Republic pursued relief by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the OSG improperly sought factual and merits review via certiorari. The CA denied reconsideration, prompting the petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Facts Adduced at Trial

Josephine testified that she and Agapito married in June 2000 and that Agapito disappeared in November 2000 without explanation; they had one child. She stated that Agapito had a growing cyst on his right jaw but presented no medical records. Josephine attempted to locate him by corresponding with Agapito’s sister‑in‑law, Lydia Bueno Pilapil, and making inquiries of friends; Lydia reportedly replied she did not know Agapito’s whereabouts. A witness, Marites Longakit Toong, testified she hand‑carried Josephine’s letter to Lydia and relayed Lydia’s denial of knowledge; however, the purported letters were not offered in evidence and Lydia did not testify.

RTC Ruling

The RTC found jurisdictional facts established and, on the basis of the testimonial record, granted the petition declaring Agapito presumptively dead pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code and directed registration with the local civil registrar.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA dismissed the OSG’s certiorari petition, holding that certiorari under Rule 65 addresses jurisdictional questions and that the OSG improperly sought a review of the RTC’s factual appreciation and the merits of the order — matters ordinarily beyond the scope of certiorari. The CA afforded procedural leniency but found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

Issue before the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC and in affirming the RTC order declaring Agapito presumptively dead, and whether Josephine satisfied the requisites of Article 41 — in particular, whether she had a well‑founded belief of the absentee’s death arising from diligent efforts to locate him.

Legal Standard on Certiorari Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court reiterated that Rule 65 certiorari is confined to questions of jurisdiction, including actions taken without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Absent exceptional circumstances that justify factual review in certiorari proceedings, questions of fact and appreciation of evidence are not amenable to certiorari relief.

Legal Standard under Article 41 — Requisites

Article 41 requires: (1) the absentee’s absence for four consecutive years (or two years in circumstances of danger of death under Article 391 of the Civil Code); (2) the present spouse’s desire to remarry; (3) a well‑founded belief that the absentee is dead; and (4) institution of the summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death. The “well‑founded belief” element demands active and diligent efforts reasonably calculated to determine whether the absentee is alive or dead; mere passive inquiries, absence of communication, or simple presumption of death are insufficient.

Jurisprudential Expectations of Diligence

The Court referenced prior decisions where petitioning spouses engaged in concrete, documented efforts — personal inquiries with relatives and friends, searches in places of known residence, inquiries at hospitals and funeral parlors, use of broad publicity (e.g., radio broadcasts), and other tangible investigative steps. Such efforts must be more than unsupported assertions; official records, named witnesses, documentary evidence, and demonstrable attempts through authorities strengthen a finding of diligence.

Application of the Standard to Josephine’s Case

The Supreme Court found Josephine’s proof deficient. Her alleged inquiries were largely non‑personal and undocumented: the letters to Lydia were not introduced in evidence; Lydia did not testify; the friends she

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 219185)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Decision of the Supreme Court reported at 890 Phil. 1090, Third Division; G.R. No. 219185, November 25, 2020.
Petition for Review on Certiorari from the Republic of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General) assailing:
- May 31, 2012 Decision and June 26, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 02719.
- The appellate rulings affirmed the February 27, 2007 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, Mandaue City, which declared Agapito S. Pilapil, Jr. presumptively dead.
Supreme Court vote/result: Petition GRANTED; the May 31, 2012 Decision and June 26, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the RTC order were REVERSED and SET ASIDE; Josephine Ponce-Pilapil’s petition to declare Agapito presumptively dead was DISMISSED.
Opinion authored by Justice HERNANDO; concurred in by Leonen (Chairperson), Inting, and Rosario, JJ.; Delos Santos, J. on official leave.
Procedural note: Hon. Marilyn Lagura-Yap, Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 55, Mandaue City, was dropped as party-respondent pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Antecedent Facts and Petition Filed

Josephine Ponce-Pilapil (Josephine) filed a petition in the RTC to declare her husband, Agapito S. Pilapil, Jr. (Agapito), presumptively dead.
The RTC set the petition for initial hearing and ordered publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation in the cities and province of Cebu.
At the initial hearing, jurisdictional facts were established and there was no opposition; trial on the petition proceeded.

Testimony and Evidence Presented at Trial

Josephine’s testimony (summarized by the RTC):
- She was 44 years old, married, a housewife and resident of Yati, Lilo-an, Cebu.
- She and Agapito married in Mandaue City on June 5, 2000; they had a child, Juan Miguel Pilapil.
- A few months after the marriage (sometime in November 2000) Agapito left without informing her of his destination; they had no quarrel prior to his leaving.
- She knew Agapito had a cyst in his right jaw which was growing.
- Agapito was originally from Ormoc City, came to live in Lilo-an because he worked there; his parents were deceased from a calamity in Ormoc in the 1990s.
- After his disappearance she tried to look for him through Agapito’s only surviving relative, Lydia Bueno Pilapil, who in reply said she had no knowledge of Agapito’s whereabouts.
- She inquired from friends who all answered negatively regarding any information on Agapito.
- She believed Agapito was already dead because more than six years had lapsed without information; she filed the petition so she could remarry.
Marites Longakit Toong’s testimony:
- Marites was 44 years old, married, a public school teacher, resident of Yati, Lilo-an, Cebu, and a childhood friend and neighbor of Josephine.
- She knew Agapito and testified that he left or disappeared sometime in November 2000.
- Marites assisted Josephine in the search; she hand-carried a letter from Josephine to Lydia in Ormoc City and met Lydia, who allegedly told her she did not know where Agapito was; Marites hand-carried Lydia’s letter-response to Josephine.
- The RTC summarized Marites’ testimony as part of the petition’s supporting evidence.

RTC Ruling

On the evidence presented, the RTC declared Agapito presumptively dead pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code in relation to Article 253 of the Civil Code.
The RTC found Josephine had established that Agapito had been absent for six years and his whereabouts were unknown.
RTC February 27, 2007 Order: the petition was GRANTED; Agapito S. Pilapil, Jr. was declared presumptively dead; petitioner directed to register the order with the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaue City and to furnish all parties concerned with a copy.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

The Republic, through the OSG, filed a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the Court of Appeals to assail the RTC order.
The Court of Appeals ruled against the Republic and dismissed the petition for certiorari, affording procedural lenience to the OSG for dispensing with a motion for reconsideration but finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
The CA held that the OSG’s attack amounted to a re-evaluation of the RTC’s factual appreciation and jurisprudential application—matters improper for certiorari—and thus denied relief.
The CA’s May 31, 2012 Decision dismissed the Petition for Certiorari; the CA also denied the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration (June 26, 2015 Resolution).

Petitioner’s (Republic/OSG) Arguments

The Republic argued Josephine failed to prove a well-founded belief that Agapito was already dead and failed to show she exerted the required diligence in searching for him.
The OSG contended that, contrary to prevailing jurisprudence, the RTC nevertheless granted the petition, demonstrating caprice and arbitrariness warranting reversal.
The OSG maintained that the CA should have reversed the RTC’s grant on certior