Republic of the Philippines vs. Sareñogon, Jr.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge an RTC's immediately final and executory judgment in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code, and the "well-founded belief" that the absent spouse is already dead requires proof of active, diligent, and honest-to-goodness efforts to locate the absent spouse—not mere passive inquiries with relatives and friends.

The Republic of the Philippines, acting through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed a summary petition filed by Jose B. Sareñogon, Jr. before the RTC of Ozamiz City for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife, Netchie S. Sareñogon, pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code. Article 41 allows a spouse present to contract a subsequent marriage if the prior spouse has been absent for four consecutive years and the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is already dead, subject to a summary judicial proceeding. Article 247 of the Family Code provides that judgments in such summary proceedings are immediately final and executory, which bears directly on the question of the proper appellate remedy.

Jose B. Sareñogon, Jr. first met Netchie S. Sareñogon in Clarin, Misamis Occidental in 1991. They became sweethearts and on August 10, 1996, married in civil rites at the Manila City Hall. The couple lived together as husband and wife for only one month, after which Jose left to work as a seaman while Netchie went to Hong Kong as a domestic helper. For three months, Jose received no communication from Netchie and had no idea of her whereabouts. While still abroad, he tried to contact Netchie's parents but failed, as they had allegedly left Clarin. After his contract expired, he returned home and inquired from Netchie's relatives and friends about her whereabouts, but they also did not know where she was. Because of these circumstances, Jose presumed that Netchie was already dead.

On November 4, 2008, Jose filed a petition before the RTC of Ozamiz City-Branch 15 for the declaration of presumptive death of Netchie, so he could contract another marriage pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code. The RTC set the petition for initial hearing on April 16, 2009, and directed publication of the order in a newspaper of general circulation in the cities of Tangub, Ozamiz, and Oroquieta, all in Misamis Occidental. Nobody opposed the petition. Jose's testimony was corroborated by his older brother, Joel Sareñogon, and by Netchie's aunt, Consuelo Sande, both of whom testified that the couple lived together for only one month before leaving for separate destinations abroad and that they had no information regarding Netchie's location.

The RTC, in its Decision dated January 31, 2011, held that Jose had established by preponderance of evidence that he was entitled to relief under Article 41, finding that Netchie had disappeared for more than four years—sufficient for Jose to conclude that his wife was already dead. The Republic, through the OSG, elevated the judgment to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, but the CA dismissed the petition, holding that the Republic used the wrong remedy and that certiorari could not be used to correct a lower court's evaluation of evidence and factual findings.

• Proper Remedy: The Republic insisted that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge an RTC's immediately final and executory decision on presumptive death, because such judgments are not appealable under express provision of law.
• Insufficiency of Search Efforts: The Republic argued that Jose's alleged efforts to locate Netchie did not engender a well-founded belief that she was probably dead, noting his failure to enlist the assistance of relevant government agencies such as the PNP, NBI, DFA, Bureau of Immigration, POEA, or OWWA.
• Lack of Corroboration: The Republic pointed out that Jose did not present any disinterested person to corroborate his allegations that Netchie was indeed missing and could not be found, nor did he advert to circumstances proving a comprehensive search.
• Policy Against Circumvention: The Republic urged courts to be vigilant against erring spouses resorting to Article 41 to terminate their marriage.
• Intent to Remarry: The Republic submitted that Jose did not categorically assert that he wanted Netchie declared presumptively dead because he intended to remarry, an essential premise of Article 41.

• Wrong Remedy by Republic: Jose countered that the CA properly dismissed the Republic's petition because it was erected on the ground that the CA did not correctly weigh or calibrate the evidence, which does not avail in a certiorari petition under Rule 65.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Jose contended that the Republic should have filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision, arguing that such a motion is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Jose argued that the RTC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, as it dutifully complied with the publication requirement, and that the trial court's factual findings are entitled to great weight and respect.
• Separation of Powers: Jose maintained that sustaining the Republic's petition would allow the executive branch to unduly make inroads into judicial territory.

• Proper Appellate Remedy: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge an RTC's decision in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code.
• Well-Founded Belief: Whether Jose's efforts to locate his missing wife sufficiently established a "well-founded belief" that she was probably dead as required by Article 41 of the Family Code.

• Proper Appellate Remedy: Yes. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy because the RTC's judgment in a summary proceeding under Article 41 is immediately final and executory by express provision of Article 247 of the Family Code, and therefore not appealable.
• Well-Founded Belief: No. Jose's efforts to locate Netchie were patently insufficient, consisting of passive inquiries with relatives and friends without seeking assistance from government agencies or the media, failing to meet the strict standard of diligent and reasonable search required by Article 41.

• Proper Appellate Remedy: Article 247 of the Family Code expressly provides that the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. Because no appeal lies from such a judgment, an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to question grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. This procedural framework was settled in Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, where the Court held that the RTC's decision on a petition for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory and the CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a notice of appeal. It was further expounded in Republic vs. Tango, which clarified that certiorari under Rule 65 should be filed with the CA, and from the CA's decision, the aggrieved party may elevate to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Republic vs. Narceda and Republic vs. Cantor reinforced this rule. The CA therefore erred in dismissing the Republic's petition on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy.

• Well-Founded Belief: Article 41 of the Family Code requires four essential requisites for declaration of presumptive death: (1) the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years (or two years if disappearance occurred under danger of death); (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 third element—the well-founded belief—requires proof of active, diligent, and honest-to-goodness efforts to ascertain the absent spouse's whereabouts and whether the absentee is still alive or already dead. Mere absence, lack of news, failure to communicate, or invocation of the general presumption on absence under the Civil Code does not suffice. In Republic vs. Cantor, the Court held that a "passive search"—consisting of unsubstantiated inquiries from in-laws, neighbors, and friends—does not meet the required degree of diligence, particularly when the present spouse fails to present the persons from whom inquiries were made, fails to report the disappearance to the police or mass media, and fails to show that the absent spouse is dead rather than merely choosing not to communicate. The Court applied a "strict standard" approach to prevent collusion between spouses and to protect the institution of marriage. Jose's efforts—bare claims of inquiries with alleged friends and relatives, without calling specific individuals to the witness stand, without seeking assistance from government agencies or the media, and without showing a thorough, determined, and unflagging search—were "pathetically anemic" and fell below the required degree of stringent diligence.

• Immediately Final and Executory Judgments in Summary Proceedings Under the Family Code — Under Article 247 of the Family Code, judgments in summary proceedings, including those for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41, are immediately final and executory. No appeal may be taken from such judgments; the proper remedy is 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, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

• Well-Founded Belief Under Article 41 of the Family Code — The "well-founded belief" that the absent spouse is already dead requires proof of active, diligent, and honest-to-goodness efforts to locate the absent spouse. Mere absence, lack of news, or failure to communicate does not suffice. The present spouse must demonstrate proper inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but, more importantly, whether the absentee is still alive or already dead. The determination is on a case-to-case basis, but the standard is strict, requiring exertion of active effort rather than passive search.

• Strict Standard in Presumptive Death Petitions — Courts must apply a strict standard in petitions for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 to prevent collusion between spouses and to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage. The strict standard is not met when: (1) there is failure to present the persons from whom the present spouse allegedly made inquiries, especially the absent spouse's relatives, neighbors, and friends; (2) there is failure to report the missing spouse's disappearance or death to the police or mass media; and (3) the present spouse's evidence shows only that the absent spouse chose not to communicate, but not necessarily that the latter was dead.

• "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 articulates the ratio decidendi on the proper appellate remedy for challenging RTC decisions in summary proceedings under the Family Code.

• "The law did not define what is meant by 'well-founded belief.' It depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. Its determination, so to speak, remains on a case-to-case basis. To be able to comply with this requirement, the present spouse must prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts and inquiries 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 requires exertion of active effort (not a mere passive one)." — This passage defines the canonical formulation of the "well-founded belief" standard under Article 41, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "Courts should never allow procedural shortcuts and should ensure that the stricter standard required by the Family Code is met." — This statement encapsulates the Court's policy rationale for imposing a strict standard in presumptive death proceedings, grounded in the State's policy to protect and strengthen marriage as a basic social institution.

• Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, 489 Phil. 761 (2005) — Controlling precedent establishing that the RTC's decision on a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 is immediately final and executory, and that the CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a notice of appeal from such judgment. The concurring opinion clarified that certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy.

• Republic vs. Tango, 612 Phil. 76 (2009) — Followed and expounded upon; settled the rule on the proper appellate procedure for summary proceedings under the Family Code, holding that certiorari under Rule 65 should be filed with the CA, and from the CA's decision, a Rule 45 petition may be filed with the Supreme Court.

• Republic vs. Narceda, G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 483 — Followed; held that the OSG availed of the wrong remedy when it filed a notice of appeal under Rule 42 with the CA to question an RTC decision declaring presumptive death.

• Republic vs. Cantor, G.R. No. 184621, December 10, 2013, 712 SCRA 1 — Controlling precedent on both the proper remedy and the well-founded belief standard; held that certiorari under Rule 65 was properly availed of by the OSG, and that a "passive search" consisting of unsubstantiated inquiries from in-laws, neighbors, and friends does not meet the required degree of diligence.

• Republic vs. Granada, 687 Phil. 403 (2012) — Followed; cited for the proposition that certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy to challenge an RTC decision in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 513 Phil. 391 (2005) — Followed; cited in Republic vs. Cantor for the principle that mere absence, lack of news, or failure to communicate does not suffice to establish well-founded belief.

• Article 41, Executive Order No. 209 (Family Code of the Philippines) — 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 spouse present had 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 provision governing Jose's petition and defining the four essential requisites, particularly the "well-founded belief" standard.

• Article 247, Family Code of the Philippines — Provides that the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. Applied to establish that no appeal lies from the RTC's decision in a presumptive death proceeding, making certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy.

• Article 253, Family Code of the Philippines — 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. Applied to confirm that Article 247's immediately final and executory rule applies to Article 41 proceedings.

• Article 238, Family Code of the Philippines — Establishes the procedural rules governing summary court proceedings in the Family Code, providing that such cases shall be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules. Cited as the foundational provision for summary proceedings under the Family Code.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, and Jose Catral Mendoza concurred in the majority decision.

• Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen — A dissenting opinion was filed, as indicated by the notation in the decision. The text of the dissent is not included in the provided case material, so the specific points of disagreement cannot be summarized.