Republic of the Philippines vs. Granada

A judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties and is not subject to ordinary appeal; the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and from the CA's decision may elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Respondent Yolanda Cadacio Granada and Cyrus Granada were married on 3 March 1993 at the Manila City Hall and had one son. In May 1994, after their employer Sumida Electric Philippines closed down, Cyrus went to Taiwan to seek employment. Yolanda thereafter lost all communication with him. After nine years, she filed a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death before the RTC in Lipa City, which was granted on 7 February 2005. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought to challenge this grant, raising both procedural and substantive objections rooted in Articles 41 and 247 of the Family Code.

Respondent Yolanda Cadacio Granada met Cyrus Granada while both were working at Sumida Electric Philippines, an electronics company in Parañaque. They married at the Manila City Hall on 3 March 1993 and had a son, Cyborg Dean Cadacio Granada. In May 1994, when Sumida Electric Philippines closed down, Cyrus went to Taiwan to seek employment. From that time on, Yolanda claimed to have received no communication from her husband, notwithstanding efforts to locate him. Her brother, Diosdado Cadacio, testified that he had inquired about Cyrus's whereabouts from the latter's relatives, but to no avail.

After nine years of waiting, Yolanda filed a Petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively dead, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 2002-0530 before RTC Branch 85 in Lipa City, presided over by Judge Avelino Demetria. On 7 February 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring Cyrus presumptively dead. On 10 March 2005, the Republic, through the OSG, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that Yolanda had failed to exert earnest efforts to locate Cyrus and thus failed to prove her well-founded belief that he was already dead. The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated 29 June 2007.

The Republic filed a Notice of Appeal to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals. Yolanda moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the CA had no jurisdiction, arguing that a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary judicial proceeding in which the judgment is immediately final and executory and thus not appealable. The CA granted the Motion to Dismiss in its 23 January 2009 Resolution, citing Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino. The Republic's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution dated 3 April 2009. The Republic then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via the present Rule 45 petition.

• Propriety of Ordinary Appeal: Petitioner argued that Republic vs. Jomoc, issued a few months after Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, had superseded the latter and effectively allowed ordinary appeal from RTC decisions in summary proceedings for declaration of presumptive death.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner maintained that respondent had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded belief that her absent spouse was already dead, as required by Article 41 of the Family Code. It pointed out that respondent did not initiate a diligent search, failed to seek information from the Taiwanese Consular Office or other government agencies, did not utilize mass media, and failed to explain these omissions. The relatives from whom respondent's brother allegedly inquired were not presented to corroborate his testimony.

• Lack of Jurisdiction over Appeal: Respondent argued that her Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death under Article 41 of the Family Code was a summary judicial proceeding in which the judgment is immediately final and executory and, thus, not appealable. She moved to dismiss the Republic's appeal on this ground.

• Appealability of Summary Proceedings: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the RTC Decision in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties and, hence, not subject to ordinary appeal.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Well-Founded Belief: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's grant of the Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death under Article 41 of the Family Code based on the evidence that respondent presented.

• Appealability of Summary Proceedings: No. The CA correctly dismissed the appeal. A petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding; the judgment therein is immediately final and executory by express provision of Article 247 and is not subject to ordinary appeal. The proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Well-Founded Belief: The Republic's arguments were well-taken, but the petition was constrained to be denied because the RTC ruling on the issue had already become final and immutable and could no longer be modified or reversed.

• Appealability of Summary Proceedings: Article 41 of the Family Code expressly requires that the present spouse institute a "summary proceeding as provided in this Code" for the declaration of presumptive death. Title XI of the Family Code, entitled "Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law," subsumes Articles 238 and 247. Article 238 provides that the procedural rules in that Title shall apply in all cases requiring summary court proceedings, to be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules. Article 247 states that the judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory. Article 253 expressly includes Article 41 proceedings among those governed by the rules in Chapters 2 and 3 of Title XI. Taken together, these provisions establish that no ordinary appeal lies from the RTC's judgment in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death. The Court rejected the argument that Republic vs. Jomoc superseded Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, noting that Jomoc addressed whether a record on appeal was required (concluding it was not, because the proceeding was not a special proceeding under Rule 72) but did not expound on the characteristics of a summary proceeding under the Family Code. The Court then cited Republic vs. Tango as the definitive ruling settling the proper mode of appeal: an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and from the CA's decision may elevate to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Well-Founded Belief: The Court acknowledged that Article 41 imposes a more stringent standard than Article 83 of the Civil Code, requiring a "well-founded belief" that the absentee is already dead rather than mere absence or general reputation of death. Drawing from Republic vs. Nolasco, United States vs. Biasbas, and Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Alegro, the Court reiterated that the belief must result from proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse. The Republic's arguments that respondent failed to conduct a diligent search — not seeking information from the Taiwanese Consular Office, not utilizing mass media, and not presenting the relatives to corroborate the brother's testimony — were found well-taken. Nevertheless, because the RTC ruling on this issue had already become final and executory, it could no longer be modified or reversed, as a final judgment becomes immutable and unalterable.

• Finality of Judgments in Summary Proceedings under the Family Code — Under Articles 41, 238, 247, and 253 of the Family Code, a judgment rendered in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties. No ordinary appeal lies. The aggrieved party's remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. From the CA's decision, the party may elevate via Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. This doctrine was definitively settled in Republic vs. Tango.

• Well-Founded Belief under Article 41 of the Family Code — The four requisites for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 are: (1) the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two years if disappearance occurred under danger of death per 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 the declaration of presumptive death. The "well-founded belief" must be the result of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent spouse is still alive or already dead. Whether the belief is well-founded depends on inquiries drawn from circumstances before and after the disappearance and the nature and extent of the inquiries made.

• 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.

• "By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction." — This passage, drawn from the Court's citation of Republic vs. Tango, articulates the definitive rule on the proper remedy for challenging RTC judgments in summary proceedings under the Family Code.

• "The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead." — This formulation, quoted from Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Alegro, defines the standard for proving a "well-founded belief" under Article 41 of the Family Code and is the canonical test cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "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." — This passage states the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, which the Court invoked as the reason it could no longer review the RTC's findings on the sufficiency of respondent's evidence despite finding the Republic's arguments well-taken.

• Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, 489 Phil. 761 (2005) — Controlling precedent on the impropriety of ordinary appeal from RTC judgments in summary proceedings for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41. The Court held that it was erroneous for the OSG to file a notice of appeal and for the RTC to give due course thereto, as the judgment is immediately final and executory. Followed and reaffirmed.

• Republic vs. Jomoc, 497 Phil. 528 (2005) — Distinguished. The Court clarified that Jomoc addressed whether a record on appeal was required in appeals from Article 41 proceedings (holding it was not, because the proceeding is not a special proceeding under Rule 72), but did not expound on the characteristics of a summary proceeding under the Family Code. It did not supersede Bermudez-Lorino.

• Republic vs. Tango, G.R. No. 161062, 31 July 2009, 594 SCRA 560 — Definitive ruling settling the rule on appeal of judgments in summary proceedings under the Family Code. Established that the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, elevable to the Supreme Court via Rule 45. Followed.

• Republic vs. Nolasco, G.R. No. 94053, 17 March 1993, 220 SCRA 20 — Cited for the four requisites of declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 and the distinction between the "well-founded belief" standard of the Family Code and the more lenient standard under Article 83 of the Civil Code.

• United States vs. Biasbas, 25 Phil. 71 (1913) — Cited as instructive on the diligence required in searching for a missing spouse. The Court held that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence where his only basis for believing his first wife was dead was the fact of her absence.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Alegro, 513 Phil. 391 (2005) — Cited for the criteria in determining the existence of a "well-founded belief" under Article 41, including the requirement that the belief result from proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries.

• Chan-Tan vs. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, 25 February 2010, 613 SCRA 592 — Cited for the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.

• Article 41, Family Code — Provides that a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage is null and void unless, before the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. Requires the present spouse to institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death. Applied as the substantive basis for respondent's petition and the source of the "well-founded belief" standard.

• Article 238, Family Code — Establishes that the procedural rules in Title XI ("Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law") shall apply in all cases requiring summary court proceedings, to be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules. Applied to confirm that Article 41 proceedings are summary proceedings governed by Title XI.

• Article 247, Family Code — Provides that the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. Applied as the express legal basis for the rule that no ordinary appeal lies from RTC judgments in Article 41 proceedings.

• Article 253, Family Code — Specifies that the rules in Chapters 2 and 3 of Title XI govern summary proceedings filed under Articles 41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124, and 217, insofar as applicable. Applied to confirm that Articles 238 and 247 govern Article 41 proceedings.

• Article 83, Civil Code — The predecessor provision to Article 41 of the Family Code, requiring only that there be no news of the absentee being alive or that the absentee is generally considered dead. Cited for comparison to show that Article 41 imposes a more stringent "well-founded belief" standard.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The proper mode for elevating the CA's decision on a Rule 65 certiorari petition to the Supreme Court. Identified as the correct procedural vehicle for the present petition.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The proper remedy for an aggrieved party to question an RTC judgment in a summary proceeding under Article 41, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Identified as the remedy the OSG should have pursued instead of filing a notice of appeal.

Antonio T. Carpio (Senior Associate Justice, Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Jose Portugal Perez, and Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred.