Republic of the Philippines vs. Bermudez-Lorino

Judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory by express mandate of Article 247, and no appeal may be taken therefrom; an appellate court acquires no jurisdiction over such an appeal and must dismiss it outright.

Gloria Bermudez-Lorino sought a judicial declaration of presumptive death of her absent spouse, Francisco Lorino, Jr., under Article 41 of the Family Code, for purposes of remarriage. Article 41 allows a spouse present in the Philippines to remarry after a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse, provided the absent spouse has been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. Article 247 of the Family Code provides that judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Code shall be immediately final and executory.

Gloria Bermudez-Lorino married Francisco Lorino, Jr. on June 12, 1987, and out of this marriage begot three children: Francis Jeno, Fria Lou, and Fatima. Before the marriage, Gloria was unaware that her husband was a habitual drinker, possessed a violent character, and had a propensity to go out with friends to the extent of being unable to engage in any gainful work.

Because of her husband's violent character, Gloria found it safer to leave him and returned to her parents together with her three children. To support the children, she was compelled to work abroad. From the time of her physical separation from her husband in 1991, Gloria had not heard of him at all and had absolutely no communications with him or with any of his relatives.

On August 14, 2000, nine years after she left her husband, Gloria filed a verified petition with the RTC at San Mateo, Rizal, under the rules on Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law provided for in the Family Code, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 325-00 SM. On August 28, 2000, the RTC issued an order directing the publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks, posting on bulletin boards of the Hall of Justice and the Municipal Hall of San Mateo, Rizal, furnishing the Office of the Solicitor General, and sending a copy to the last known address of Francisco Lorino, Jr. The evidence in support of the petition included the order of publication, the affidavit of publication, copies of the newspapers, a deposition of Gloria taken in Hong Kong, her affidavit executed in Hong Kong, and a certification by the Department of Foreign Affairs Authentication Officer authenticating the signature of the Vice Consul appearing below the jurat in Gloria's affidavit.

In a decision dated November 7, 2001, the RTC found merit in the petition and rendered judgment declaring the presumptive death and absence of Francisco Lorino, Jr. pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code, subject to all restrictions and conditions provided therein. Despite the judgment being immediately final and executory under Article 247 of the Family Code, the OSG filed a Notice of Appeal on November 22, 2001. The RTC, acting on the notice, gave due course to the appeal and ordered the transmittal of the entire records to the Court of Appeals, which docketed the case as CA-G.R. CV No. 73884. The Court of Appeals, treating the case as an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, denied the Republic's appeal and affirmed the RTC decision without modification on September 23, 2003. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, the Republic directly elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Pure Question of Law: Petitioner maintained that the petition for review raises a pure question of law that does not require prior filing of a motion for reconsideration.
• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Petitioner presented the issue of whether the Court of Appeals duly acquired jurisdiction over the appeal on a final and executory judgment of the RTC.
• Sufficiency of Bases for Presumptive Death: Petitioner raised the issue of whether the factual and legal bases for a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code were duly established.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Whether the Court of Appeals duly acquired jurisdiction over the appeal on a final and executory judgment of the RTC.
• Sufficiency of Bases for Presumptive Death: Whether the factual and legal bases for a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code were duly established in this case.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: No. The Court of Appeals acquired no jurisdiction over the appeal because the RTC judgment in a summary judicial proceeding under the Family Code is immediately final and executory by express provision of Article 247, and no right to appeal was granted to any party, including the Republic as oppositor.
• Sufficiency of Bases for Presumptive Death: Not reached. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on this issue, as the RTC judgment was already final and executory and immutable; the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction rather than deciding it on the merits.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Article 247 of the Family Code expressly provides that judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Code "shall be immediately final and executory." Because the judgment was immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties, there was no reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal. The RTC therefore erred in giving due course to the OSG's notice of appeal and in transmitting the records to the Court of Appeals. An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a judgment which, by express provision of law, is immediately final and executory. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due process but merely a statutory privilege, and since Article 247 grants no such right in summary judicial proceedings, the Republic as oppositor had no right to appeal. The Court of Appeals should have dismissed the appeal outright on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. While the Court of Appeals ultimately reached the same result by affirming the RTC decision, there is a critical difference between dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction — which allows the appellee to immediately seek issuance of an Entry of Judgment in the RTC — and denying the appeal on the merits, which allows the appellant to elevate the matter further and prevents execution until final disposition. The Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error in failing to dismiss the erroneous appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
• Sufficiency of Bases for Presumptive Death: The Court did not reach the merits of this issue. Because the RTC judgment was immediately final and executory under Article 247, it became immutable and unalterable and could no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct perceived errors of fact or law. The Court of Appeals should not have entertained the appeal at all; consequently, the sufficiency of the factual and legal bases for the declaration of presumptive death was not subject to appellate review.

• Immutability of Final Judgments — When a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and whether made by the highest court of the land. The Court applied this doctrine to the RTC's declaration of presumptive death, which was immediately final and executory under Article 247 of the Family Code.
• No Right to Appeal from Summary Judicial Proceedings under the Family Code — By express mandate of Article 247 of the Family Code, all judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in Family Law are "immediately final and executory," and no right to appeal is granted to any of the parties, including the Republic as oppositor. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due process but merely a statutory privilege; where the law expressly makes a judgment immediately final and executory, no appeal may be taken therefrom.

• "In Summary Judicial Proceedings under the Family Code, there is no reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal, precisely because judgments rendered thereunder, by express provision of Section 247, Family Code, supra, are 'immediately final and executory'." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: because Article 247 renders judgments in summary judicial proceedings immediately final and executory, there is no period to perfect an appeal, and the RTC erred in giving due course to the OSG's notice of appeal.
• "An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a judgment which, by express provision of law, is immediately final and executory." — This formulation states the controlling rule that an appellate court cannot acquire jurisdiction over an appeal from a judgment made immediately final and executory by law, and is the principle the Court used to find grave reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
• "Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and executory it becomes immutable and unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and whether made by the highest court of the land." — This canonical statement of the immutability doctrine, quoted from Nacuray vs. NLRC, underscores why the Court of Appeals should not have reviewed the merits of the RTC decision at all.

• Veloria vs. Comelec, 211 SCRA 907 [1992] — Cited for the proposition that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due process but merely a statutory privilege, supporting the conclusion that no appeal lies from a judgment expressly made final and executory by law.
• Nacuray vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 9 [1997] — Cited for the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, which the Court applied to hold that the RTC decision, being immediately final and executory, could no longer be modified or reviewed on appeal.
• Nunal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94005, 6 April 1993, 221 SCRA 26 — Cited within the Nacuray quotation for the principle that a final and executory judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even by the highest court.

• Article 41, Family Code — Governs the judicial declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse for purposes of remarriage; the respondent's petition before the RTC was based on this provision.
• Article 247, Family Code — Provides that judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code "shall be immediately final and executory"; this was the controlling provision that rendered the RTC decision unappealable and deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction over the Republic's appeal.
• Article 238, Family Code — Sets the tenor for cases covered by summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code, providing that such cases shall be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules; the RTC was noted to have complied with this provision by rendering judgment within ninety days.

Justices Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales concurred. Justice Panganiban (Chairman) concurred in the result.