Reyes vs. Alejandro

A judicial declaration of absence is unnecessary if the absentee left no property requiring administration, as the purpose of the law on absence is solely to enable the taking of necessary precautions for the administration of the absentee's estate.

Erlinda Reynoso Reyes married Roberto L. Reyes on March 20, 1960. In April 1962, Roberto left their conjugal home due to a misunderstanding and was not heard from since. The couple acquired no properties during their marriage and had no outstanding obligations. Erlinda filed a petition for declaration of absence invoking Rule 107 of the New Rules of Court and Article 384 of the Civil Code.

Erlinda Reynoso Reyes and Roberto L. Reyes were married on March 20, 1960. Sometime in April 1962, Roberto left their conjugal dwelling due to a misunderstanding over personal matters. Since then, Erlinda received no news about his whereabouts. During their marriage, the couple did not acquire any properties, nor did they have any outstanding obligations in favor of anyone. Roberto left no will and no property in his name.

On October 25, 1969, Erlinda filed a petition to have Roberto judicially declared an absentee, invoking Rule 107 of the Rules of Court and Article 384 of the Civil Code. Her sole purpose was to establish the absence of her husband. The Court of First Instance of Cavite dismissed the petition, finding that since Roberto left no properties, there was no necessity to declare him judicially an absentee.

• Purpose of Petition: Petitioner argued that her only purpose in filing the petition was to establish the absence of her husband, invoking the provisions of Rule 107 of the New Rules of Court and Article 384 of the Civil Code.

• Necessity of Declaration: Whether a judicial declaration of absence is necessary when the absentee has left no property to be administered.

• Necessity of Declaration: No. The declaration of absence has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee.

• Necessity of Declaration: The provisions of the Civil Code on absence (Articles 381 to 396) are concerned with absence only with reference to its effects on property. The primordial purpose of declaring an absentee is to provide for an administrator of the property of the absentee. The law requires the judge to appoint a representative for the absentee to safeguard the property or interest of the latter. Because neither the petition alleges nor the evidence shows that Roberto L. Reyes has any rights, interest, or property in the Philippines, there is no point in judicially declaring him an absentee. The need to have a person judicially declared an absentee arises when he has properties which have to be taken care of or administered by a court-appointed representative, or when specific marital property relations require it.

• Purpose of Declaration of Absence — The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. It is not necessary for purposes of civil marriage law, which only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years and other prescribed conditions are met. The Court applied this doctrine to affirm the dismissal of the petition since the absentee left no property requiring administration.

• "The need to have a person judicially declared an absentee is when he has properties which have to be taken cared of or administered by a representative appointed by the Court (Article 384, Civil Code); the spouse of the absentee is asking for separation of property (Article 191, Civil Code) or his wife is asking the Court that the administration of an classes of property in the marriage be transferred to her (Article 196, Civil Code)." — This passage delineates the specific instances where a judicial declaration of absence is legally necessary.
• "Considering that neither the petition alleges, nor the evidence shows, that Roberto L. Reyes has any rights, interest or property in the Philippines, there is no point in judicially declaring him an absentee." — This statement forms the ratio decidendi for the dismissal of the petition based on the absence of property.

• Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 197 — Cited to support the proposition that a judicial declaration of absence is not necessary for the purposes of the civil marriage law, and that its sole purpose is to enable the administration of the absentee's estate.
• Peyer vs. Martinez, 88 Phil. 72 — Cited to note that a petition to declare a husband an absentee and a petition to place the management of conjugal properties in the hands of the wife may be combined and adjudicated in the same proceedings.

• Article 384, Civil Code — Provides that after the lapse of two years without news of the absentee, or five years if an administrator was left, his absence may be declared by the court. The provision was cited by the petitioner but the Court clarified its purpose is solely for the administration of property.
• Rule 107, Rules of Court — Governs the judicial declaration of absence and complements the Civil Code provisions. Sections 6 and 7 mandate the appointment of a representative, trustee, or administrator to safeguard the absentee's rights and interests.
• Articles 381, 382, 383, Civil Code — Cover the first period or stage of absence, providing for provisional measures and the appointment of a representative to safeguard the rights and interests of the absentee.
• Article 191, Civil Code — Mentioned as an instance where a declaration of absence is needed, specifically when the spouse of the absentee asks for separation of property.
• Article 196, Civil Code — Mentioned as an instance where a declaration of absence is needed, when the wife asks the Court to transfer the administration of all classes of property in the marriage to her.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.