Republic of the Philippines vs. Tango

A judgment rendered in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is immediately final and executory by express provision of Article 247, and is therefore not appealable; the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Appeals, and from the CA's decision, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

Ferventino U. Tango and Maria Jose Villarba were married in civil rites on March 9, 1987 before then Mayor Ignacio Bunye of Muntinlupa City. None of Maria's relatives witnessed the ceremony, as they opposed the relationship. The couple had only spent one night together when Maria informed Ferventino that she and her family would be leaving for the United States. Four days after the wedding, Maria and her family departed for Seattle, USA. The case involves the interpretation and application of Articles 41, 238, 247, and 253 of the Family Code, which govern summary judicial proceedings for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse and the finality of judgments rendered therein.

On March 9, 1987, Ferventino U. Tango and Maria Jose Villarba were married in civil rites before then Mayor Ignacio Bunye of Muntinlupa City. None of Maria's relatives attended the ceremony, as they were opposed to her relationship with Ferventino. The couple had spent only one night together and had been intimate once when Maria told Ferventino that she and her family would soon be leaving for the United States of America. She assured him that she would file a petition so he could live with her in the USA, and promised that if the petition were denied, she would return to the Philippines to live with him. On March 13, 1987, four days after the wedding, Maria and her family flew to Seattle, USA.

According to Ferventino, Maria kept in touch for about a year before she stopped responding to his letters. Out of resentment, he burned all the letters she had written him and forgot her address. He then undertook efforts to locate her. He inquired of her uncle, Antonio Ledesma, in Las Piñas, but even Maria's relatives were unaware of her whereabouts. He solicited the assistance of a friend in Texas, Capt. Luis Aris of the U.S. Air Force, who reportedly searched the Seattle phone directory for Maria's name and inquired at the registrar's office in Seattle, but both efforts were in vain. Ferventino also sought the aid of his parents, Antonio and Eusebia, in Los Angeles, and his aunt, Anita Castro-Mayor, in Seattle. Their attempts likewise proved fruitless. The next fourteen years passed without any news of Maria.

On October 1, 2001, on the belief that his wife had died, Ferventino filed a verified petition before the Ligao City RTC, Branch 11, for the declaration of presumptive death of Maria under Article 41 of the Family Code. When the case was called for initial hearing on January 8, 2002, nobody entered any opposition. On July 22, 2002, Ferventino presented evidence ex parte and testified in court about the details of his search. The following day, July 23, 2002, the RTC issued an Order declaring Maria Jose V. Villarba presumptively dead within the meaning of Article 41 of the Family Code. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Republic, filed a notice of appeal. The RTC gave due course to the appeal and transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals, which treated the case as an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 and affirmed the RTC's Order, holding that Maria's absence for fourteen years despite diligent search was sufficient to support a well-founded belief of her death. The Republic then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, respondent's counsel manifested his intent to withdraw, citing respondent's desire to withdraw from the proceeding; respondent had not submitted any pleading other than the original verified petition.

• Hearsay Testimony: Petitioner argued that respondent's testimony regarding the alleged efforts made by his friend and relatives in locating his missing wife in Seattle, USA, is hearsay and devoid of probative value, because none of the persons who purportedly helped in the search testified in court.
• Insufficiency of Well-Founded Belief: Petitioner maintained that even assuming the testimony may be considered in evidence, the alleged efforts of respondent's friend and relatives in locating his missing wife do not sufficiently support a "well-founded belief" that the absent spouse is probably dead.
• Preservation of Marital Institutions: Petitioner invoked constitutional provisions advocating the state policy of preserving marital institutions, belittling its own failure to object to the admissibility of respondent's testimony during trial.

• Hearsay: Whether the testimony of respondent Ferventino regarding the efforts made by his friend and relatives to locate his missing wife is hearsay and devoid of probative value.
• Well-Founded Belief: Whether respondent Ferventino established a basis to form a well-founded belief that his absent spouse is already dead.
• Finality of Judgment and Proper Mode of Review: Whether the RTC judgment in a summary proceeding under Article 41 of the Family Code is appealable, and whether it had attained finality such that the substantive issues are rendered moot.

• Hearsay: Not reached. The substantive issues were rendered moot by the finality of the RTC judgment, which became immutable due to the Republic's procedural lapse in filing a notice of appeal instead of a petition for certiorari.
• Well-Founded Belief: Not reached. The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the issues raised by petitioner in light of the finality of the RTC judgment.
• Finality of Judgment and Proper Mode of Review: No appeal lies from a judgment in a summary proceeding under the Family Code. Article 247 expressly provides that such judgment is immediately final and executory; the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and the Republic's filing of a notice of appeal rendered the RTC judgment final and immutable.

• Hearsay: The Court did not reach this issue. Because the RTC judgment in the summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death was immediately final and executory by express provision of Article 247 of the Family Code, and because the Republic filed a notice of appeal instead of a petition for certiorari, the judgment had long become final. The Court held that "it would be unnecessary, if not useless, to discuss the issues raised by petitioner," including the hearsay issue.

• Well-Founded Belief: The Court likewise did not reach this issue for the same reason. The procedural infirmity of the Republic's mode of review rendered the substantive question of whether respondent's search efforts sufficed to establish a well-founded belief moot and academic.

• Finality of Judgment and Proper Mode of Review: Article 238 of the Family Code establishes that procedural rules in Title XI (Summary Judicial Proceedings in Family Law) shall apply in all cases requiring summary court proceedings, to be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules. Article 253 specifies that the rules in Chapters 2 and 3 of that title govern summary proceedings filed under Article 41, among others. Article 247 in Chapter 2 expressly provides that "the judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory." As a consequence, no appeal may be taken from the RTC's judgment in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death; the aggrieved party's remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Appeals to question grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. From the CA's decision, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may then be filed with the Supreme Court. In this case, the Republic committed a serious procedural lapse by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC instead of a petition for certiorari. The RTC equally erred in giving due course to the appeal and transmitting the records to the CA. The CA committed grave reversible error in failing to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the judgment was not appealable. Although the Republic filed the correct mode of review (Rule 45 petition) before the Supreme Court, the RTC judgment had already become final. The doctrine of finality of judgment, grounded on public policy and sound practice, provides that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. None of the recognized exceptions—correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, or circumstances arising after finality rendering execution unjust—obtained in this case.

• Finality of Judgment in Summary Proceedings Under the Family Code — Under Article 247 of the Family Code, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a consequence, no appeal lies from such judgment. The aggrieved party's sole remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed with the Court of Appeals, to question grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. From the CA's decision, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may be filed with the Supreme Court. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the Republic's filing of a notice of appeal was a procedural lapse that rendered the RTC judgment final and immutable, and that the CA erred in entertaining the appeal as an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

• Doctrine of Finality of Judgment (Immutability of Final Judgments) — A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and whether made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The doctrine is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that judgments must become final on some definite date fixed by law. The only exceptions are: (a) correction of clerical errors, (b) nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, (c) void judgments, and (d) circumstances transpiring after finality rendering execution unjust and inequitable. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that none of the exceptions obtained, and the RTC judgment could no longer be reviewed.

• Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts — Even if the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. A petition for certiorari questioning the RTC judgment in a summary proceeding should be filed with the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. (Citing Flaminiano vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 165258, February 4, 2008.)

• "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." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: that Article 247 of the Family Code renders judgments in summary proceedings immediately final and executory, precluding ordinary appeal.

• "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. Such petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts." — This defines the proper remedy available to an aggrieved party from a judgment in a summary proceeding under the Family Code.

• "Deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence is the principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. As such, it may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• Flaminiano vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 165258, February 4, 2008 — Cited for the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts, supporting the rule that a petition for certiorari from an RTC judgment in a summary proceeding should be filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the concurrence of jurisdiction.
• Heirs of Maura So vs. Obliosca, G.R. No. 147082, January 28, 2008 — Cited twice: first, for the proposition that errors a court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment proper subjects of appeal; second, for the doctrine of finality of judgment and its exceptions.
• Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, G.R. No. 160258, January 19, 2005 — Cited for the proposition that the Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error in failing to dismiss the Republic's erroneous appeal, because the RTC judgment in a summary proceeding was not appealable by express provision of law.

• Article 41, Family Code — Governs the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse, requiring that the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, and that a summary proceeding be instituted for such declaration. The RTC applied this provision in granting Ferventino's petition.
• Article 238, Family Code — Establishes that the procedural rules in Title XI (Summary Judicial Proceedings in Family Law) shall apply in all cases requiring summary court proceedings, to be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules. The Court relied on this provision to establish the framework governing the RTC's proceedings.
• Article 247, Family Code — Provides that "the judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory" in summary proceedings. This was the controlling provision for the Court's ruling that no appeal lies from the RTC's judgment and that the Republic's notice of appeal was procedurally improper.
• Article 253, Family Code — Specifies that the rules in Chapters 2 and 3 of Title XI govern summary proceedings filed under Article 41, among other articles. The Court cited this to confirm that Article 247's finality rule applies to Article 41 proceedings.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. The Republic correctly invoked this rule before the Supreme Court, but the Court held that the RTC judgment had already become final.
• Rule 41, Rules of Court — Governs ordinary appeals. The Court of Appeals erroneously treated the Republic's appeal under this rule, when the proper remedy was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Conchita Carpio Morales, Minita V. Chico-Nazario (designated member per Special Order No. 658), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated member per Special Order No. 635), and Diosdado M. Peralta (designated member per Special Order No. 664) concurred with the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.