Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals

A petition for declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court; thus, a notice of appeal suffices to perfect an appeal and no record on appeal is required.

Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc filed a petition before the RTC of Ormoc City, Branch 35, seeking a declaration of presumptive death of her absentee spouse, Clemente P. Jomoc, who had left her nine years earlier. The petition was anchored on Article 41 of the Family Code, which provides for summary proceedings for the declaration of presumptive death of an absentee spouse for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the grant of the petition and sought to appeal the trial court's order.

Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Branch 35, captioned "In the Matter of Declaration of Presumptive Death of Absentee Spouse Clemente P. Jomoc," seeking to have her husband, who had left her nine years earlier, declared presumptively dead. The trial court, presided over by Judge Fortunito L. Madrona, granted the petition by Order of September 29, 1999 on the basis of the Commissioner's Report, declaring the absentee spouse presumptively dead. The trial court cited Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, which provides that for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage where the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought to appeal the trial court's order by filing a Notice of Appeal. By Order of November 22, 1999, the trial court disapproved the Notice of Appeal, noting that no record on appeal was filed and served as required by Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the case being a special proceeding. The Republic's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Order of January 13, 2000.

The Republic then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, contending that the declaration of presumptive death of a person under Article 41 of the Family Code is not a special proceeding or a case of multiple or separate appeals requiring a record on appeal. The Court of Appeals, by Decision of May 5, 2004, denied the petition on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the appellate court noted that the Republic failed to attach a certified true copy of the Order dated January 13, 2000 and that the petition purported to question an Order dated August 15, 1999, a copy of which could not be found in the records. Substantively, the Court of Appeals held that the petition was in the nature of a special proceeding because it sought to establish a status or a particular fact, not to enforce or protect a right or prevent a wrong, and therefore a record on appeal was required.

• Nature of the Proceeding: Petitioner argued that the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is not a special proceeding involving multiple or separate appeals where a record on appeal is required.
• Enumeration in Rule 109: Petitioner cited Rule 109 of the Revised Rules of Court, which enumerates the cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed and a record on appeal is required, and contended that since the petition for declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse is not included in that enumeration, a mere notice of appeal suffices.
• Procedural Lapses Not Fatal: Petitioner contended that its failure to attach a copy of the trial court's order denying its motion for reconsideration was not necessarily fatal, as the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense, and that the appellate court should have directed compliance rather than dismissing the petition.
• Scope of the Petition Before the CA: Petitioner maintained that its 8-page petition before the Court of Appeals merely assailed the order disapproving the Notice of Appeal, contrary to the appellate court's observation that it was also assailing the order granting the petition for declaration of presumptive death.

• Special Proceeding Nature: Respondent Court of Appeals held that the petition for declaration of presumptive death is in the nature of a special proceeding, as it merely seeks a declaration by the trial court of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse and does not seek the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
• Record on Appeal Required: Respondent argued that, being a special proceeding, the OSG should have filed, in addition to its Notice of Appeal, a record on appeal in accordance with Section 19 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines to implement BP Blg. 129 and Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
• Procedural Deficiencies: Respondent pointed out that the petition before the Court of Appeals was insufficient in form for failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed Order dated January 13, 2000, and that the petition purported to question an Order dated August 15, 1999, a copy of which could not be found in the records.

• Nature of the Proceeding: Whether a petition for declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code is a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court requiring a record on appeal, or a summary proceeding under the Family Code for which a notice of appeal suffices.
• Procedural Defects: Whether the Republic's failure to attach certain orders to its petition before the Court of Appeals warranted outright dismissal.

• Nature of the Proceeding: No. The petition is a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court; Article 41 expressly characterizes it as a "summary proceeding," and Article 238 makes the procedural rules in Title XI of the Family Code applicable to all summary court proceedings, such that only a notice of appeal is required to perfect an appeal.
• Procedural Defects: No. The failure to attach a copy of the order denying the motion for reconsideration was not necessarily fatal, as the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense; the appellate court should have directed petitioner to comply with the rule. As for the alleged failure to submit a copy of the order granting the petition, petitioner's 8-page petition did not reflect that it was assailing that order, but only the order disapproving the Notice of Appeal.

• Nature of the Proceeding: The trial court's citation of Article 41 of the Family Code reveals that Jomoc's petition had for its purpose her desire to contract a valid subsequent marriage. Article 41, paragraph 2 expressly provides that "the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee." Article 238 of the Family Code, found in Title XI entitled "Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law," provides that the procedural rules in that Title shall apply in all cases provided for in the Code requiring summary court proceedings, to be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. Since the Family Code itself characterizes the petition as a summary proceeding, it is not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court for which a record on appeal is required. Article 254 of the Family Code further reinforces this conclusion by repealing all laws, rules, and regulations inconsistent with the Family Code. Being a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial court's order sufficed to perfect the appeal.

• Procedural Defects: The Republic's failure to attach to its petition before the Court of Appeals a copy of the trial court's order denying its motion for reconsideration is not necessarily fatal, for the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense. Given the issue raised, the appellate court should have directed petitioner to comply with the rule. As for the alleged failure to submit a copy of the trial court's order granting the petition for declaration of presumptive death, contrary to the appellate court's observation that petitioner was also assailing it, petitioner's 8-page petition does not so reflect; it merely assailed the order disapproving the Notice of Appeal.

• Summary Proceedings Under the Family Code — Proceedings expressly designated as "summary proceedings" by the Family Code, such as the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41, are governed by the procedural rules in Title XI of the Family Code (Article 238), not by the special proceedings rules of the Revised Rules of Court. These proceedings are to be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. Because they are summary ordinary proceedings, not special proceedings, a notice of appeal suffices to perfect an appeal; no record on appeal is required.

• Distinction Between Civil Action and Special Proceeding — A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. While the Court of Appeals applied this distinction to classify the petition as a special proceeding, the Supreme Court held that the express characterization in the Family Code as a "summary proceeding" overrides this classification for purposes of the mode of appeal.

• Liberal Application of Procedural Rules — The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense. A petition's failure to attach a required document is not necessarily fatal; the court should direct the party to comply with the rule rather than dismissing the petition outright.

• "there is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial court's order sufficed." — This is the ratio decidendi: the Court's definitive classification of the petition for declaration of presumptive death as a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Rules of Court, and the consequent sufficiency of a notice of appeal.

• "For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of a reappearance of the absent spouse." — This is the text of Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, the statutory anchor for the Court's holding that the proceeding is a summary proceeding expressly designated by the Family Code itself.

• "Unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this Code requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules." — This is Article 238 of the Family Code, which the Court relied upon to establish that the procedural rules governing summary proceedings are those found in Title XI of the Family Code, not the special proceedings rules of the Revised Rules of Court.

• Heirs of Yaptinchay vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 124320, March 2, 1999 — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the definition distinguishing a civil action from a special proceeding under Section 3(a) and (c), Rule 1 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court did not overturn this distinction but held that the express designation in the Family Code controls the characterization of the proceeding for purposes of the mode of appeal.

• Article 41, Family Code — Provides that a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void unless the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. Its second paragraph requires the institution of a "summary proceeding" for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse. The Court relied on the express use of "summary proceeding" in this provision to classify the nature of the petition.
• Article 238, Family Code — Provides that the procedural rules in Title XI (Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law) shall apply in all cases provided for in the Family Code requiring summary court proceedings, to be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. The Court used this provision to establish that summary proceedings under the Family Code are governed by the Family Code's own procedural rules, not the special proceedings rules of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Article 254, Family Code — Repeals all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules, and regulations inconsistent with the Family Code. The Court cited this provision to reinforce that the Family Code's characterization of the proceeding as a summary proceeding prevails over any inconsistent procedural rule.
• Article 390, Civil Code — Provides that after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, the absentee shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. Cited as the pertinent Civil Code provision on presumption of death, providing context for the Family Code's more specific provision.
• Section 2(a), Rule 41, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that no record on appeal shall be required in ordinary appeals except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or the Rules so require. The trial court and the Court of Appeals invoked this provision to require a record on appeal; the Supreme Court held it inapplicable because the proceeding was a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding.
• Section 1, Rule 72, Revised Rules of Court — Enumerates the subject matter of special proceedings, including "declaration of absence and death" under paragraph (m). While this enumeration includes declaration of absence and death, the Court held that the Family Code's express designation of the Article 41 proceeding as a "summary proceeding" controls over the general enumeration in Rule 72.
• Rule 109, Revised Rules of Court — Enumerates the cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed and a record on appeal is required. Petitioner cited this rule to argue that since the petition for declaration of presumptive death is not included in the enumeration, a mere notice of appeal suffices.

Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Garcia, JJ., concurred.