Republic vs. Alegro

A declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code requires the present spouse to prove not only the absent spouse's disappearance for the requisite period but also a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead, which belief must be the result of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse. The spouse present bears the burden of proving both elements, and the belief must be founded on rational motives, not merely on the spouse's subjective wishes.

Alan B. Alegro and Rosalia (Lea) A. Julaton were married on January 20, 1995 in Catbalogan, Samar. Article 41 of the Family Code permits a spouse to contract a subsequent marriage when the prior spouse has been absent for four consecutive years and the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, subject to a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death. The State's policy to protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution, with marriage as an inviolable social institution protected by the 1987 Constitution, underlies the strict scrutiny applied to such petitions.

Alan B. Alegro and Rosalia (Lea) A. Julaton were married on January 20, 1995 in Catbalogan, Samar. On February 6, 1995, Lea arrived home late in the evening, and Alan berated her for being always out of their house, telling her that if she enjoyed the life of a single person, it would be better for her to go back to her parents. Lea did not reply. The following day, when Alan reported for work, Lea was still in the house, but when he arrived home later in the day, she was nowhere to be found. Alan thought that Lea merely went to her parents' house in Bliss, Sto. Niño, Catbalogan, Samar.

On February 14, 1995, after his work, Alan went to the house of Lea's parents to see if she was there, but he was told that she was not there. He also went to the house of Lea's friend, Janeth Bautista, at Barangay Canlapwas, but was informed by Janeth's brother-in-law, Nelson Abaenza, that Janeth had left for Manila. When Alan went back to the house of his parents-in-law, he learned from his father-in-law that Lea had been to their house but that she left without notice. Alan sought the help of Barangay Captain Juan Magat, who promised to help him locate his wife. He also inquired from his friends of Lea's whereabouts but to no avail.

Sometime in June 1995, Alan decided to go to Manila to look for Lea, but his mother asked him to leave after the town fiesta of Catbalogan, hoping that Lea may come home for the fiesta. Alan agreed; however, Lea did not show up. Alan left for Manila on August 27, 1995. He went to a house in Navotas where Janeth, Lea's friend, was staying. When asked where Lea was, Janeth told him that she had not seen her. He failed to find out Lea's whereabouts despite his repeated talks with Janeth. Alan decided to work as a part-time taxi driver. On his free time, he would look for Lea in the malls but still to no avail. He returned to Catbalogan in 1997 and again looked for his wife but failed.

On June 20, 2001, Alan reported Lea's disappearance to the local police station. The police authorities issued an Alarm Notice on July 4, 2001. Alan also reported Lea's disappearance to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on July 9, 2001. Barangay Captain Juan Magat corroborated Alan's testimony, declaring that on February 14, 1995, at 2:00 p.m., Alan inquired from him if Lea passed by his house, and that he had not seen Lea in the barangay ever since. Lea's father, who was his compadre and the owner of Radio DYMS, told him that he did not know where Lea was. After Alan rested his case, neither the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor nor the Solicitor General adduced evidence in opposition to the petition.

• Failure to Prove Well-Founded Belief: The Republic alleged that respondent Alan B. Alegro failed to prove that he had a well-founded belief that Lea was already dead, as required by Article 41 of the Family Code.
• Lack of Diligent Efforts: The Republic averred that respondent failed to exercise reasonable and diligent efforts to locate his wife, pointing out that respondent even admitted that Lea's father told him on February 14, 1995 that Lea had been to their house but left without notice.
• Belated Reporting: The Republic pointed out that respondent reported his wife's disappearance to the local police and the NBI only after the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition, suggesting that respondent did not really want to find and locate Lea.
• Strict Compliance Required: The Republic argued that given the summary nature of proceedings under Article 41, the degree of due diligence set by the Court in locating a missing spouse must be strictly complied with, noting that Article 41 may be resorted to by parties wishing to remarry knowing fully well that their alleged missing spouses are alive and well.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondent's arguments in response to the petition.

• Well-Founded Belief: Whether respondent Alan B. Alegro proved that he had a well-founded belief that his wife Rosalia (Lea) A. Julaton was already dead, as required by Article 41 of the Family Code.
• Sufficiency of Diligence: Whether respondent exercised reasonable and diligent efforts to locate his missing wife before filing the petition for declaration of presumptive death.

• Well-Founded Belief: No. Respondent failed to prove that he had a well-founded belief, before he filed his petition in the RTC, that his spouse Rosalia (Lea) Julaton was already dead. 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.
• Sufficiency of Diligence: No. Respondent's efforts to locate his wife were insufficient, and his reports to the local police and the NBI were made only as an afterthought, after the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in the RTC.

• Well-Founded Belief: Article 41 of the Family Code requires that before a subsequent marriage may be contracted, the prior spouse must have been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present must have a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. The law does not define what is meant by a well-grounded belief. The Court cited Cuello Callon's formulation that the belief must be firm and founded on rational motives ("es menester que su creencia sea firme se funde en motivos racionales"). Belief is a state of the mind or condition prompting the doing of an overt act, and may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Any fact or circumstance relating to the character, habits, conditions, attachments, prosperity and objects of life which usually control the conduct of men, and are the motives of their actions, is competent evidence on the ultimate question of death. Whether the spouse present acted on a well-founded belief depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many circumstances occurring before and after the disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature and extent of the inquiries made by the present spouse. The Court warned in Republic vs. Nolasco against collusion between parties when they find it impossible to dissolve the marital bonds through existing legal means, noting the maxim that "men readily believe what they wish to be true."

• Sufficiency of Diligence: In this case, respondent failed to present a witness other than Barangay Captain Juan Magat. He even failed to present Janeth Bautista or Nelson Abaenza or any other person from whom he allegedly made inquiries about Lea to corroborate his testimony. Respondent admitted that when he returned to the house of his parents-in-law on February 14, 1995, his father-in-law told him that Lea had just been there but that she left without notice. Lea left their conjugal abode on February 7, 1995 after respondent chided her for coming home late and for being always out of their house, and told her that it would be better for her to go home to her parents if she enjoyed the life of a single person. Lea thus left because of her resentment to the chastisement she received barely a month after their marriage. The Court found it worrisome that respondent failed to make inquiries from his parents-in-law regarding Lea's whereabouts before filing his petition in the RTC, considering that Lea's father was the owner of Radio DYMS. Respondent did report and seek the help of the local police authorities and the NBI to locate Lea, but this was only an afterthought — he did so only after the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in the RTC. In sum, respondent failed to prove that he had a well-founded belief, before he filed his petition, that his spouse was already dead.

• Well-Founded Belief under Article 41 of the Family Code — The present spouse must prove that the absent spouse has been absent for four consecutive years (or two years in cases of danger under Article 391 of the Civil Code) and that the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. The belief must be firm and founded on rational motives, and 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. The determination of whether the belief is well-founded depends upon the inquiries drawn from circumstances occurring before and after the disappearance and the nature and extent of the inquiries made by the present spouse. In this case, the Court found that respondent's belief was not well-founded because his efforts to locate his wife were inadequate, he failed to present corroborating witnesses, and his reports to authorities were made only as an afterthought.

• "The spouse present is, thus, burdened to prove that his spouse has been absent and that he has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead before the present spouse may contract a subsequent marriage." — This passage articulates the burden of proof imposed on the present spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code, establishing the two essential elements that must be proven.
• "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 is the canonical formulation of the standard for determining whether the present spouse's belief of death is well-founded, requiring genuine and diligent efforts to locate the absent spouse.
• "In this case, the respondent failed to present a witness other than Barangay Captain Juan Magat. The respondent even failed to present Janeth Bautista or Nelson Abaenza or any other person from whom he allegedly made inquiries about Lea to corroborate his testimony." — This passage demonstrates the Court's application of the corroboration requirement, finding respondent's evidence insufficient to establish a well-founded belief.
• "The respondent did report and seek the help of the local police authorities and the NBI to locate Lea, but it was only an afterthought. He did so only after the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in the RTC." — This passage explains why respondent's reports to authorities were given little weight, as they were made only after the OSG moved to dismiss the petition, undermining the sincerity of his efforts.

• Republic vs. Nolasco, G.R. No. 94053, March 17, 1993, 220 SCRA 20 — Cited by the Court of Appeals in affirming the RTC decision and relied upon by the Court for the warning against collusion between parties when they find it impossible to dissolve the marital bonds through existing legal means. The Court also noted the maxim that "men readily believe what they wish to be true" in connection with this precedent.
• Tyrrell vs. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 115 A.L.R., 392 (1937) — Cited for the proposition that any fact or circumstance relating to the character, habits, conditions, attachments, prosperity and objects of life which usually control the conduct of men, and are the motives of their actions, is competent evidence on the ultimate question of death.
• Gall vs. Gall, 69 Sickels 109, 21 NE 106 (1889) — Cited for the principle that whether the spouse present acted on a well-founded belief of death depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many circumstances occurring before and after the disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature and extent of the inquiries made by the present spouse.

• Article 41, Family Code of the Philippines — The central provision of the case, requiring that before a subsequent marriage may be contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage, the prior spouse must have been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present must have a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In cases of disappearance where there is danger under Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years is sufficient. The spouse present must institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee.
• Article 391, Civil Code — Referenced in Article 41 of the Family Code as the provision enumerating the circumstances of danger that would reduce the required period of absence from four years to two years.
• Article XV, 1987 Constitution — Implicitly relied upon as the basis of the State's policy to protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution, with marriage as an inviolable social institution that the Constitution seeks to protect from dissolution at the whim of the parties.
• Rule 15, Rules of Court — The basis for the RTC's denial of the OSG's Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with the rule's requirements.

Puno, J. (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, J., Tinga, J., and Chico-Nazario, J., concurred in the decision.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the provided case text.