Republic vs. Fenol

A judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code requires proof of "well-founded belief" that the absent spouse is dead, which demands a showing of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but also whether he or she is still alive. Mere absence for the statutory period, lack of communication, or the present spouse's bare assertion of inquiries from relatives—especially where the persons inquired from are not identified or presented as witnesses—does not suffice. The judgment in such summary proceedings is immediately final and executory, making certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy for an aggrieved party.

The respondent, Leilanie Dela Cruz Fenol, married Reneto Alilongan Suminguit on July 8, 2000, in Kidapawan City, and the couple had one child. Article 41 of the Family Code permits a spouse 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 absent spouse is dead, provided a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is instituted. Articles 238, 247, and 253 of the Family Code govern such summary proceedings, providing that the judgment therein shall be immediately final and executory.

Leilanie Dela Cruz Fenol married Reneto Alilongan Suminguit on July 8, 2000, in Kidapawan City, and the couple had a child named Loren Jade Fenol Suminguit. In January 2001, Reneto left the conjugal dwelling in Malayan, M'lang, Cotabato, and went to Manila to apply for work abroad. He never returned, and his whereabouts remained unknown for a continuous period of more than eight years.

On November 16, 2009, respondent filed a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death before the RTC of Kabacan, Cotabato. In the petition, she alleged that she exerted earnest efforts to locate her husband: she went to Manila sometime in 2002 and stayed there for seven months to find him, but the search proved futile; she also went to Reneto's relatives in Cayawan, Davao del Norte, only to find that they had no knowledge of his whereabouts; and sometime in 2004, she applied for employment abroad and worked overseas, but still failed to find Reneto until she returned to the Philippines in 2008.

The RTC granted the petition on April 15, 2011, declaring Reneto presumptively dead subject to the restrictions and conditions of Article 41 of the Family Code. The RTC reasoned that Reneto had been absent for more than nine years and that the "well-founded belief" requirement had been preponderantly established by the circumstances, notwithstanding the absence of concrete documentary evidence. The OSG moved for reconsideration, which was denied on May 31, 2012. The CA affirmed the RTC Decision on November 28, 2013, holding that respondent exerted sufficient efforts to locate Reneto and that the RTC Decision was already final and executory. The OSG's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 26, 2014, prompting the petition before the Supreme Court.

• Procedural Remedy: The OSG argued that while the RTC Decision in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory and not appealable, it may still be reviewed via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and the CA erred in dismissing the petition for being the wrong remedy.
• Insufficient Efforts: The OSG argued that, contrary to the findings of the courts below, the respondent's efforts in locating her husband were not sufficient to form a well-founded belief that he was already dead.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondent's specific arguments on appeal.

• Procedural Remedy: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the OSG's petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy to challenge the RTC's judgment in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death.
• Well-Founded Belief: Whether the respondent's efforts to locate her husband were sufficient to establish a "well-founded belief" that he was already dead under Article 41 of the Family Code.

• Procedural Remedy: No. The CA erred in dismissing the OSG's petition for certiorari. Under Articles 41, 238, 247, and 253 of the Family Code, the judgment in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory, and the proper remedy for an aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Well-Founded Belief: No. The respondent failed to satisfy the "well-founded belief" requirement of Article 41 of the Family Code. Her efforts consisted only of a seven-month stay in Manila and an inquiry from Reneto's relatives in Davao del Norte, which were insufficient to constitute the diligent and reasonable search required by law.

• Procedural Remedy: The Court reasoned that nothing could be clearer from Articles 41, 238, 247, and 253 of the Family Code than that a petition for declaration of presumptive death involves a summary proceeding whose judgment is immediately final and executory. Consequently, such a judgment cannot be the proper subject of an appeal, and the filing of a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal is a procedural misstep warranting outright dismissal. The final and executory nature of the judgment renders the court's dispositions and conclusions immutable and unalterable not only as against the parties but even as against the courts, except for correction of clerical errors. However, the losing party is not left without recourse: the OSG may properly bring an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 before the appellate court on the ground that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court cited Republic vs. Narceda, which in turn quoted Republic vs. Tango, holding that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and that such petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. The CA had been unmindful of this consistent pronouncement when it declared that the OSG resorted to a wrong remedy.

• Well-Founded Belief: The Court applied the standard set in Republic vs. Tampus, which clarified that the "well-founded belief" in the absentee's death requires the present spouse to prove that his or her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse, and that based on these efforts and inquiries, he or she believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. It necessitates exertion of active effort, not a passive one. Mere absence for the prescribed periods, lack of news that the absentee is still alive, failure to communicate, or general presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not suffice. The present spouse bears the burden of discharging the stringent requirement of "well-founded belief" through a showing of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but also whether he or she is still alive or already dead. Applying this standard, the Court found that the respondent's "earnest efforts" consisted only of two instances: (1) going to Manila and staying there for seven months to look for Reneto, and (2) going to Davao del Norte, Reneto's birthplace, to inquire about his whereabouts from his family and relatives. When Reneto's family members denied knowing his whereabouts, respondent took their word without inquiring from neighbors or other disinterested persons. She did not present Reneto's family and relatives as witnesses to attest to her inquiries. The Court reiterated that the present spouse's bare assertion that he or she inquired from friends or relatives is insufficient, especially when the names of the persons from whom inquiries were made were not identified in the testimony nor presented as witnesses. Furthermore, respondent never reported the matter to the local police or local government unit, did not coordinate with the Philippine consul office while working abroad, and offered no plausible explanation for failing to secure the assistance of authorities. A claim of a diligent search cannot be given credence sans evidentiary support, and the respondent failed to discharge her burden of proving her allegation that she exercised the degree of diligence required.

• Well-Founded Belief under Article 41 of the Family Code — The "well-founded belief" in the absentee's death requires the present spouse to prove that his or her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse, and that based on these efforts and inquiries, he or she believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. It necessitates exertion of active effort, not a passive one. Mere absence for the prescribed periods, lack of news, failure to communicate, or general presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not suffice. The present spouse must show proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but also whether he or she is still alive or already dead. In this case, the respondent's limited efforts—a seven-month stay in Manila and an inquiry from the husband's relatives—were insufficient, especially where the persons inquired from were not identified or presented as witnesses, and where no report was made to authorities.

• Immediately Final and Executory Judgment in Summary Proceedings — Under Articles 238, 247, and 253 of the Family Code, the judgment in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory. Such judgment cannot be the proper subject of an appeal, and the filing of a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal is a procedural misstep warranting outright denial or dismissal. The final and executory nature of the judgment renders the court's dispositions and conclusions immutable and unalterable not only as against the parties but even as against the courts, except for correction of clerical errors. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts.

• "The 'well-founded belief' in the absentee's death requires the present spouse to prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts 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 necessitates exertion of active effort, not a passive one." — This passage, quoted from Republic vs. Tampus, defines the controlling standard for the "well-founded belief" requirement under Article 41 of the Family Code and is the central ratio decidendi for the Court's denial of the respondent's petition.

• "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, quoted from Republic vs. Tango via Republic vs. Narceda, establishes the procedural rule that certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the proper remedy to challenge a summary proceeding's judgment.

• "Time and again, we have held that the present spouse's bare assertion that he inquired from his friends or from the relatives of his absent spouse about the latter's whereabouts is insufficient especially when the names of the persons from whom he made inquiries were not identified in the testimony nor presented as witnesses." — This passage articulates the evidentiary insufficiency of the respondent's claim, forming the basis for the Court's finding that she failed to discharge her burden of proving diligent search.

• Republic vs. Tampus, 783 Phil. 485 (2016) — Controlling precedent that clarified the scope and extent of the present spouse's duty to prove "well-founded belief" in the absentee's death, requiring diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse. The Court applied this standard to find the respondent's efforts insufficient.
• Republic vs. Narceda, 708 Phil. 458 (2013) — Followed for the proposition that the remedy of a losing party in a summary proceeding is not an ordinary appeal but a petition for certiorari, quoting Republic vs. Tango.
• Republic vs. Cantor, 723 Phil. 114 (2013) — Cited for the immutability of final and executory judgments in summary proceedings and for the rule that certiorari lies to challenge decisions in summary proceedings for declaration of presumptive death.
• Republic vs. Granada, 687 Phil. 403 (2012) — Cited for the proposition that a petition for declaration of presumptive death involves a summary proceeding whose judgment is immediately final and executory.
• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 513 Phil. 391 (2005) — Cited for the proposition that belief is a state of mind which may only be established by direct or circumstantial evidence that tends to elucidate the inquiry.
• Republic vs. Nolasco, 292-A Phil. 102 (1993) — Cited for the rule that the present spouse's bare assertion of inquiries from friends or relatives is insufficient when the persons inquired from are not identified or presented as witnesses.
• C-E Construction Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 456 Phil. 597 (2003) — Cited for the rule that courts are barred from modifying or altering a definitive final judgment except for correction of clerical errors.

• Article 41, Family Code — Provides that a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage is null and void unless the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years (or two years in cases of danger of death under Article 391 of the Civil Code) and the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was dead. The Court applied this provision to determine whether the respondent satisfied the "well-founded belief" requirement.
• Article 238, Family Code — Provides that procedural rules in the Family Code apply to all cases requiring summary court proceedings, which shall be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules. The Court cited this to establish the summary nature of the proceeding.
• Article 247, Family Code — Provides that the judgment of the court in summary proceedings shall be immediately final and executory. The Court relied on this to hold that no appeal lies from such judgment and that certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy.
• Article 253, Family Code — Provides that the rules in Chapters 2 and 3 of Title XI shall govern summary proceedings filed under Articles 41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124, and 217. The Court cited this to apply the immediately final and executory rule to Article 41 proceedings.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The Court held that this is the proper remedy for an aggrieved party to question a judgment in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa (Working Chairperson), and Lopez, JJ., concurred.

• Lazaro-Javier, J. — Filed a dissenting opinion, the contents of which are not detailed in the provided case text.