Republic of the Philippines vs. Catubag

A petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code requires the present spouse to prove a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead, which demands diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absentee—including reporting to authorities and presenting corroborating witnesses—and mere passive inquiries with friends and relatives, uncorroborated by evidence, are insufficient. Judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory and cannot be subject to a motion for reconsideration or appeal, but may be challenged via certiorari under Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the declaration of presumptive death of Shanaviv G. Alvarez-Catubag, the wife of private respondent Ludyson C. Catubag. The parties' marriage was celebrated in 2003 after several years of cohabitation, and two children were born prior to the marriage. Catubag worked overseas while Shanaviv remained in the Philippines to care for the children. The dispute centers on whether Catubag satisfied the stringent requirements of Article 41 of the Family Code, which governs declarations of presumptive death in summary judicial proceedings and permits a present spouse to remarry upon proof of a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is dead.

Ludyson C. Catubag and Shanaviv G. Alvarez-Catubag had been cohabiting as husband and wife prior to their marriage, and their union produced two children, Mark Bryan and Rose Mae, born on May 18, 2000 and May 21, 2001, respectively. In 2001, Catubag took work overseas to support his family while Shanaviv stayed in the Philippines to tend to the children. The couple married on June 26, 2003 in Rizal, Cagayan, before Judge Tomas D. Lasam. Sometime in April 2006, the family acquired a housing unit at Rio del Grande Subdivision in Enrile, Cagayan. Catubag then returned overseas to continue working, maintaining constant communication with his family.

On July 12, 2006, while Catubag was abroad, his relatives informed him that Shanaviv had left their house and never returned. The relatives took care of the children in her absence. Catubag took an emergency vacation and returned to the Philippines to search for his wife. He looked for her in Enrile, Cagayan, without success, and then inquired about her whereabouts from close friends and relatives, who could offer no help. He traveled as far as Bicol, where Shanaviv was born and raised, but still could not locate her. Catubag also sought the help of Bombo Radyo Philippines to broadcast the fact of his wife's disappearance, and searched various hospitals and funeral parlors in Tuguegarao and Bicol, all to no avail.

On May 4, 2012, after almost seven years of waiting, Catubag filed a petition with the RTC to have his wife declared presumptively dead. The RTC granted the petition on May 23, 2013, declaring Shanaviv presumptively dead for the purpose of permitting Catubag to contract a subsequent marriage. The Republic, through the OSG, elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, contending that Catubag failed to establish a well-founded belief that his wife was already dead. The CA dismissed the petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the court a quo, and subsequently denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioner argued that its resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the RTC decision declaring Shanaviv presumptively dead was proper, since judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory and cannot be subject to a motion for reconsideration or appeal.
• Procedural Dismissal by CA: Petitioner contended that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that no motion for reconsideration was filed with the court a quo, and on the ground that petitioner failed to attach copies of all pertinent and relevant documents and pleadings.
• Well-Founded Belief: Petitioner maintained that private respondent failed to establish a well-founded belief that his missing wife was already dead, as required under Article 41 of the Family Code.
• Intention to Remarry: Petitioner argued that private respondent failed to prove his intention to remarry.

• Propriety of Remedy: Whether the Republic's resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the RTC decision declaring Shanaviv presumptively dead was proper.
• Well-Founded Belief: Whether private respondent complied with the essential requisites of a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code, specifically whether he established a well-founded belief that his absent spouse was already dead.

• Propriety of Remedy: Yes. Certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to challenge the RTC decision, because judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory and cannot be subject to a motion for reconsideration or appeal; the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari questioning grave abuse of discretion.
• Well-Founded Belief: No. Private respondent failed to establish a well-founded belief that his wife was already dead, his search efforts being merely passive—consisting of uncorroborated inquiries with friends and relatives, a radio broadcast, and hospital visits—without reporting to police or the NBI or presenting corroborating witnesses.

• Propriety of Remedy: Proceedings for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code are summary in nature, as expressly provided by Articles 41, 238, and 253 of the Family Code. By express mandate of Article 247, judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in Family Law are immediately final and executory, and the right to appeal was not granted to any party, including the Republic. Consequently, a motion for reconsideration is not available, and the CA erred in dismissing the petition on that ground. However, an aggrieved party may challenge the decision of the court a quo through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. As outlined in Republic vs. Sarenogon, Jr., filing with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper, and any subsequent CA decision may be elevated to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Republic's resort to certiorari was therefore proper.

• Well-Founded Belief: Article 41 of the Family Code requires four requisites: (1) the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years (or two years if disappearance involved danger of death under Article 391 of the Civil Code); (2) the present spouse wishes to remarry; (3) the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead; and (4) the present spouse files a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death. The first, second, and fourth requisites were complied with; the dispute centered on the third. A "well-founded belief" has no exact definition under law and depends on the circumstances of each case, but jurisprudence requires that such belief result from diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse—an active, not passive, effort. Mere absence, lack of news, failure to communicate, or general presumption of absence is insufficient. Applying the standards from Cantor, Granada, and Orcelino-Villanueva, Catubag's efforts fell short for three reasons: first, he failed to present any of the friends or relatives from whom he allegedly made inquiries to corroborate his claims; second, he did not seek the help of government agencies such as the police or the NBI; and third, aside from the Bombo Radyo certification, his well-founded belief rested on bare assertions uncorroborated by any evidence. Only the radio broadcast was corroborated, and that act alone does not establish a well-founded belief of death. A lenient approach would allow easy circumvention of the Family Code and undermine the State's policy of protecting the institution of marriage.

• Immediately Final and Executory Judgments in Summary Judicial Proceedings — Under Article 247 of the Family Code, judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in Family Law are immediately final and executory. Parties cannot seek reconsideration or appeal such decisions. The Republic, as oppositor, is not treated differently and has no right to appeal. The proper remedy to challenge such judgments is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

• Well-Founded Belief of Death — The "well-founded belief" required under Article 41 of the Family Code must result from diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse. It necessitates active effort, not passive search. Mere absence of the spouse (even beyond the period required by law), lack of news that the absentee is alive, mere failure to communicate, or general presumption of absence under the Civil Code is insufficient. The present spouse bears the burden of proving proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but, more importantly, whether the absent spouse is still alive or already dead. Corroborating witnesses and reports to authorities are expected. A lenient approach in applying these standards would defeat the State's policy in protecting and strengthening the institution of marriage.

• "The well-founded belief in the absentee's death requires the present spouse to prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse and that based on these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. It necessitates exertion of active effort (not a mere passive one)." — This passage, quoting Republic vs. Orcelino-Villanueva, articulates the canonical formulation of the standard for establishing a well-founded belief of death under Article 41, and is the controlling test applied in this case.

• "There have been times when Article 41 of the Family Code had been resorted to by parties wishing to remarry knowing fully well that their alleged missing spouses are alive and well." — This passage, quoted from Republic vs. Court of Appeals, explains the policy rationale for the stringent standard: to prevent circumvention of the marriage laws through the summary nature of Article 41 proceedings.

• "Stripped of private respondent's mere allegations, only the act of broadcasting his wife's alleged disappearance through a known radio station was corroborated. This act comes nowhere close to establishing a well-founded belief that Shanaviv has already passed away. At most, it just reaffirms the unfortunate theory that she abandoned the family." — This passage crystallizes the Court's assessment of Catubag's evidence and its conclusion that his efforts were insufficient as a matter of law.

• Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, 489 Phil. 761 (2005) — Cited for the proposition that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due process, and that the Republic has no right to appeal a judgment in a summary judicial proceeding under the Family Code, as such judgments are immediately final and executory under Article 247.

• Republic vs. Sarenogon, Jr., G.R. No. 199194, February 10, 2016, 783 SCRA 615 — Cited for outlining the proper legal remedies available in summary proceedings for declaration of presumptive death: certiorari under Rule 65 to the CA, then petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.

• Republic vs. Cantor, 723 Phil. 114 (2013) — Cited as controlling authority on the standard for well-founded belief, establishing that passive searches are insufficient and that the present spouse must report to authorities and present corroborating witnesses.

• Republic vs. Granada, 687 Phil. 403 (2012) — Cited for the proposition that mere inquiries from relatives, without reporting to police or seeking aid of mass media, and without presenting corroborating witnesses, fall short of the diligence required.

• Republic vs. Orcelino-Villanueva, 765 Phil. 324 (2015) — Cited for the canonical formulation of the well-founded belief standard requiring diligent and reasonable efforts, and for the rule that bare assertions without corroborative evidence are insufficient.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 513 Phil. 391 (2005) — Cited for the caution against a liberal approach to Article 41, warning that leniency would allow circumvention of the marriage laws and undermine the institution of marriage.

• Article 41, Family Code — Governs declarations of presumptive death, requiring that the prior spouse has been absent for four consecutive years (or two years if disappearance involved danger of death under Article 391 of the Civil Code), that the present spouse has a well-founded belief the absentee is dead, and that a summary proceeding be instituted for such declaration. Applied as the central provision requiring Catubag to prove all four requisites, particularly the well-founded belief.

• Article 247, Family Code — Provides that judgments in summary judicial proceedings in Family Law are immediately final and executory. Applied to establish that the Republic had no right to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration, and that certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy.

• Articles 238 and 253, Family Code — Govern summary judicial proceedings in Family Law, providing that such cases shall be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules, and that the rules apply to proceedings under Article 41. Applied to confirm the summary nature of presumptive death proceedings.

• Article 391, Civil Code — Enumerates circumstances giving rise to a presumption of death, including persons on board a lost vessel or missing aircraft, members of the armed forces missing in war, and persons in danger of death whose existence has not been known for four years. Cited in relation to the reduced two-year absence period under Article 41.

Carpio, A.T. (Chairperson), Peralta, D.M., Perlas-Bernabe, E.M., and Caguioa, A.B.S. concurred.