Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8034)
RTC’s Grant under Article 41 of the Family Code
The RTC granted the petition, declaring Wilfredo “absent or presumptively dead under Article 41 of the Family Code” for purposes of claiming financial benefits as a former officer. The fallo was later corrected to reflect benefits—not remarriage—as its purpose.
CA’s Annulment for Lack of Jurisdiction
On certiorari, the CA held that Article 41 (remarriage presumption) did not apply; petitioner relied on Civil Code Articles 390–391. It ruled that the Civil Code presumption is evidentiary only and cannot be the subject of an independent proceeding. Hence, the RTC had no authority to entertain the petition and the action was dismissed.
Supreme Court’s Denial of Appeal and Jurisdictional Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA. It emphasized:
- Article 41 applies solely to remarriage. Petitioner never sought remarriage.
- Articles 390–391 express evidentiary presumptions of death; courts lack authority to entertain an independent proceeding on them. Independent declaratory actions on those presumptions are not viable.
- The RTC’s grant constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Guidelines on Claiming Military Death Benefits
To prevent repetitive litigation, the Court directed:
- PVAO and AFP may apply the Civil Code presumption upon sufficient evidence of absence (service records, affidavits) without a court declaration.
- If evidence is deemed insufficient, administrative remedies must be exhausted (appeal to the
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-8034)
Facts
- Petitioner Estrellita Tadeo-Matias filed on April 10, 2012 before the RTC of Tarlac City a petition for declaration of presumptive death of her husband, Philippine Constabulary member Wilfredo N. Matias, missing since September 15, 1979.
- The couple married on January 7, 1968, and established their conjugal home in San Miguel, Tarlac City.
- Wilfredo never returned from his tour of duty in Arayat, Pampanga, and no communication or news of his whereabouts was ever received.
- Official service records declared him missing since 1979; petitioner repeatedly inquired but obtained no information, only that he had been assigned to an area with New People’s Army activity.
- After over three decades of waiting and facing financial hardship, petitioner sought benefits under P.D. No. 1638 (as amended), requiring proof of death or a court declaration of presumptive death.
Procedural History
- RTC Branch 65 docketed the petition as Special Proceeding No. 4850; Office of the Solicitor General appeared for the Republic.
- On January 15, 2012, the RTC granted the petition, declaring Wilfredo “absent or presumptively dead under Article 41 of the Family Code” for purposes of claiming military benefits.
- The Republic filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 129467).
- On November 28, 2016, the CA granted certiorari, annulled and set aside the RTC decision, and dismissed the petition.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on March 20, 2017.
- Petitioner appealed under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 230751).
Issues
- Whether the RTC correctly applied Article 41 of the Family Code in declaring presumptive death.
- Whether a standalone petition to declare a person presumptively dead under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code is a valid cause of action.
- Whether courts have authority to take cognizance of a petition whose sole purpose is a de