Title
Republic vs. Ponce-Pilapil
Case
G.R. No. 219185
Decision Date
Nov 25, 2020
Josephine sought to declare Agapito presumptively dead after his 2000 disappearance, but the Supreme Court ruled her search efforts insufficient under Article 41 of the Family Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-42)

Procedural History and Applicable Law

Josephine filed a petition for declaration of presumptive death of her husband due to his prolonged absence without information, a circumstance allowing her to remarry under Article 41 of the 1987 Family Code, read together with Article 253 of the Civil Code. The RTC granted the petition, declaring Agapito presumptively dead after confirming his absence for six years and Josephine’s claim of a well-founded belief in his death. The Republic challenged this via Petition for Certiorari before the CA, which denied relief, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The 1987 Philippine Constitution guided the decision because the events and rulings occurred after 1990.

Facts Established in Trial

Josephine testified that Agapito left shortly after their marriage in 2000 without any communication or known destination. She had no quarrel or cause for his disappearance. Agapito was from Ormoc City, with all his parents deceased from a calamity, leaving Lydia Bueno Pilapil as his only surviving relative. Josephine sought information about Agapito’s whereabouts through letters to Lydia and inquiries to friends but obtained no leads. Her friend and neighbor, Marites Longakit Toong, corroborated that Josephine’s inquiries, including delivery of letters, did not yield any clue to Agapito’s location. Josephine expressed her well-founded belief that Agapito was dead after more than six years of absence.

RTC’s Decision and Grounds for Declaration

The RTC relied on Josephine’s testimonies and the six-year absence without news to declare Agapito presumptively dead pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code. The RTC found jurisdictional facts established, including the lapse of the required years of absence and Josephine’s well-founded belief in Agapito’s death, allowing her to remarry.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Position of the Republic

The CA acknowledged procedural leniency afforded to the OSG but ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion warranting annulling its order via certiorari, which is limited to jurisdictional errors. The CA held that challenging the RTC’s appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions was improper in certiorari proceedings. The CA thus dismissed the OSG’s Petition for Certiorari.

The Republic contended that Josephine failed to prove a well-founded belief of Agapito’s death and that she did not exert the necessary diligent and reasonable efforts in searching for her missing husband. Consequently, the trial court’s granting of the petition and the CA’s affirmation were alleged to be arbitrary and capricious.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Certiorari and Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court reiterated that certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court addresses only jurisdictional issues or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It underscored that challenges to factual findings or legal errors by a lower court are generally outside the scope of certiorari review, save for recognized exceptions.

In this case, the OSG’s petition before the CA essentially sought reconsideration of the RTC’s evaluation of evidence and application of jurisprudence, which is not a valid ground for certiorari absent exceptional circumstances. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the petition was not a proper vehicle to address alleged errors in judgment. The RTC accordingly acted within its jurisdiction in deciding the case.

Requirements Under Article 41 of the Family Code and Jurisprudence

Article 41 provides that a surviving spouse may remarry if the prior spouse has been absent for four consecutive years (or two years if disappearance is under circumstances involving danger of death as per Article 391 of the Civil Code), the present spouse files a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death, and has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is dead.

Jurisprudence establishes four requisites for such declaration: (1) absence for the required consecutive years; (2) desire to remarry; (3) a well-founded belief in the absent spouse’s death; and (4) filing of a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death.

The “well-founded belief” demands diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse and ascertain their death, not merely passive attempts or general lack of information. The burden is on the filing spouse to prove these efforts and belief, which must be confirmed by inquiries, investigations, or other meaningful diligence.

Evaluation of Josephine’s Efforts and Well-Founded Belief

The Court found Josephine’s efforts in search of Agapito insufficient. Her inquiries were mainly through letter correspondence mediated by others; she did not personally verify leads nor presented letters as admissible evidence. Agapito’s alleged cyst was not substantiated by medical evidence. Witnesses to corroborate the search or the content of communications were lacking, and no police or investigative assistance was sought to locate Agapito. Such efforts did not meet the jurisprudential standard of active, diligent, and reasonable searches as required.

Comparative jurisprudence cited shows that courts expect more exhaustive efforts, such as personally visiting relatives, friends, places known to the absent spouse,

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms