Republic vs. Narceda

Judgments rendered in summary proceedings for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code are immediately final and executory by express provision of Article 247, and are therefore not appealable. The proper remedy of an aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, filed with the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts, not an ordinary appeal.

Robert P. Narceda (respondent) married Marina B. Narceda on 22 July 1987, when Marina was only 17 years and 4 months old, as shown in their Marriage Contract. The petition for declaration of presumptive death was filed under Article 41 of the Family Code, which governs the contracting of a subsequent marriage by a spouse whose prior spouse has been absent for four consecutive years. Article 41, paragraph 2, expressly requires the present spouse to institute a "summary proceeding" for the declaration of presumptive death, and Title XI of the Family Code (Articles 238, 247, and 253) supplies the procedural rules for such summary proceedings.

Robert P. Narceda (respondent) married Marina B. Narceda on 22 July 1987, when Marina was only 17 years and 4 months old, as reflected in their Marriage Contract. According to respondent, Marina went to Singapore sometime in 1994 and never returned. There was never any communication between them. Respondent tried to look for her but could not find her. Several years after she left, one of their town mates in Luna, La Union came home from Singapore and told him that the last time she saw his wife, the latter was already living with a Singaporean husband.

In view of Marina's absence and respondent's desire to remarry, respondent filed with the RTC on 16 May 2002 a Petition for a judicial declaration of the presumptive death and/or absence of Marina. The RTC granted respondent's Petition in a Decision dated 5 May 2005, declaring the presumptive death of Marina B. Narceda for all legal intents and purposes as provided for in Rule 131, Sec. 3(w-4) of the Rules of Court, without prejudice to the effect of re-appearance of the absent spouse.

Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, arguing that respondent failed to conduct a search for his missing wife with the diligence required by law and enough to give rise to a "well-founded" belief that she was dead. The CA dismissed the appeal, ruling that the hearing of a petition for the declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding under the Family Code and is thus governed by Title XI thereof, and that Article 247 of the Family Code provides that the judgment of the trial court in summary court proceedings shall be immediately final and executory. The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its 29 April 2008 Resolution.

• Jurisdiction of the CA: The OSG insisted that the CA had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, because respondent had failed to establish a well-founded belief that his absentee spouse was dead.
• Well-Founded Belief: Petitioner argued that respondent failed to conduct a search for his missing wife with the diligence required by law and enough to give rise to a "well-founded" belief that she was dead.
• Applicability of Jomoc: The OSG cited Republic vs. CA (Jomoc), arguing that the petition for declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court, and that the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial court's order sufficed.

N/A — The decision does not recount respondent's arguments before the Supreme Court.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic's appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
• Well-Founded Belief: Whether respondent failed to establish a well-founded belief that his absentee spouse is dead.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: No. The CA correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Judgments rendered in summary proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory by express provision of Article 247, and are therefore not appealable. The proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not an ordinary appeal.
• Well-Founded Belief: No longer entertainable. Because the OSG availed itself of the wrong remedy, the running of the period for filing a Petition for Certiorari continued to run and was not tolled. Upon lapse of that period, the RTC Decision could no longer be questioned, and the substantive contention may no longer be entertained.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: The Court agreed with the CA. Article 41 of the Family Code provides that for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. Title XI of the Family Code governs such summary proceedings. Article 247 provides that the judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory. The Court cited Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, which held that in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code, there is no reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal, precisely because judgments rendered thereunder are "immediately final and executory." An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a judgment which, by express provision of law, is immediately final and executory. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege. The Republic, as oppositor in the petition for declaration of presumptive death, should not be treated differently; it had no right to appeal the RTC decision.

• Well-Founded Belief: The Court clarified that Republic vs. CA (Jomoc) cannot be interpreted as having superseded the pronouncements in Bermudez-Lorino, because Jomoc does not expound on the characteristics of a summary proceeding under the Family Code, while Bermudez-Lorino squarely touches upon the impropriety of an ordinary appeal as a vehicle for questioning a trial court's decision in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41. As explained in Republic vs. Tango, the remedy of a losing party in a summary proceeding is not an ordinary appeal, but a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party may then file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court. When the OSG filed its notice of appeal under Rule 42, it availed itself of the wrong remedy. As a result, the running of the period for filing a Petition for Certiorari continued to run and was not tolled. Upon lapse of that period, the Decision of the RTC could no longer be questioned.

• Immediate Finality of Summary Proceedings under the Family Code — Under Article 247 of the Family Code, the judgment of the court in summary proceedings shall be immediately final and executory. This means 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. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the CA correctly dismissed the Republic's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

• Proper Remedy: Certiorari, Not Appeal — The remedy of a losing party in a summary proceeding is not an ordinary appeal, but 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. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the OSG's filing of a notice of appeal under Rule 42 was the wrong remedy, and the period for filing a Petition for Certiorari continued to run and was not tolled.

• Right to Appeal is Statutory — The right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege. Since, by express mandate of Article 247 of the Family Code, all judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in Family Law are "immediately final and executory," the right to appeal was not granted to any of the parties therein. The Republic, as oppositor in the petition for declaration of presumptive death, should not be treated differently.

• "In Summary Judicial Proceedings under the Family Code, there is no reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal, precisely because judgments rendered thereunder, by express provision of Section 247, Family Code, supra, are 'immediately final and executory.' It was erroneous, therefore, on the part of the RTC to give due course to the Republic's appeal and order the transmittal of the entire records of the case to the Court of Appeals." — This passage from Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, quoted by the Court, establishes the controlling rule that judgments in summary proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory and thus not appealable.

• "An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a judgment which, by express provision of law, is immediately final and executory. As we have said in Veloria vs. Comelec, 'the right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege.'" — This passage from Bermudez-Lorino, quoted by the Court, explains why the CA lacked jurisdiction to review the RTC Decision and why the Republic had no right to appeal.

• "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 from Republic vs. Tango, quoted by the Court, articulates the proper remedy for an aggrieved party in a summary proceeding: certiorari, not appeal.

• Republic vs. CA (Jomoc), 497 Phil. 528 (2005) — Cited by the OSG to argue that a notice of appeal sufficed in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death. The Court distinguished this case, holding that Jomoc cannot be interpreted as having superseded Bermudez-Lorino because Jomoc does not expound on the characteristics of a summary proceeding under the Family Code.

• Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino, 489 Phil. 761 (2005) — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on this case to hold that there is no reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code, and that the Republic had no right to appeal the RTC decision.

• Republic vs. Granda, G.R. No. 187512, 13 June 2012 — Cited by the Court to clarify that Jomoc cannot be interpreted as having superseded Bermudez-Lorino.

• Republic vs. Tango, G.R. No. 161062, 31 July 2009, 594 SCRA 560 — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on this case to explain that the remedy of a losing party in a summary proceeding is not an ordinary appeal, but a petition for certiorari, and that the period for filing such petition was not tolled by the filing of the wrong remedy.

• Article 41, Family Code — Provides that a marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. The Court applied this provision to determine that the petition for declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding.

• Article 238, Family Code — Provides that until modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules provided for in Title XI shall apply as regards separation in fact between husband and wife, abandonment by one of the other, and incidents involving parental authority. The Court cited this provision to establish that Title XI governs the summary proceeding.

• Article 247, Family Code — Provides that the judgment of the court in summary proceedings shall be immediately final and executory. The Court applied this provision to hold that the RTC Decision was not appealable.

• Article 253, Family Code — Provides that the rules in Chapters 2 and 3 of Title XI shall likewise govern summary proceedings filed under Articles 41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124 and 217, insofar as they are applicable. The Court cited this provision to confirm that Article 41 proceedings are governed by Title XI.

• Rule 131, Sec. 3(w-4), Rules of Court — Cited in the RTC Decision's dispositive portion as the basis for declaring the presumptive death of Marina B. Narceda.

• Rule 42, Rules of Court — The Court noted that the OSG filed its notice of appeal under Rule 42, which was the wrong remedy for questioning a summary proceeding judgment.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The Court noted that from the decision of the Court of Appeals in a certiorari proceeding, the losing party may file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The Court explained that the proper remedy for an aggrieved party in a summary proceeding is a petition for certiorari under this rule, filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts.

• Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
• Lucas P. Bersamin
• Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
• Bienvenido L. Reyes

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