Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Gloria Bermudez-Lorino married Francisco Lorino, Jr. on June 12, 1987, and they had three children. Prior to their marriage, Gloria was unaware of her husband's habitual drinking, violent tendencies, and inability to maintain gainful employment. Due to his violent character, Gloria left her husband in 1991, returning to her parents with their children and subsequently working abroad to support them. Since their physical separation in 1991, Gloria has had no contact with her husband or his relatives. Procedural History: On August 14, 2000, nine years after her separation, Gloria filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her husband with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, under Article 41 of the Family Code. The RTC, after publication and hearing, granted the petition on November 7, 2001, declaring Francisco Lorino, Jr. presumptively dead. Despite the judgment being immediately final and executory under Article 247 of the Family Code, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC elevated the records to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a decision dated September 23, 2003, affirmed the RTC's judgment. The Petition: Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. The Republic argues that the CA erred in acquiring jurisdiction over an appeal from a judgment that was immediately final and executory, and that the factual and legal bases for the declaration of presumptive death were not duly established. The Republic contends that the CA should have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as Article 247 of the Family Code renders such judgments immediately final and executory, precluding any right to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals duly acquired jurisdiction over the appeal on a final and executory judgment of the Regional Trial Court. Whether or not the factual and legal bases for a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code were duly established in this case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. The Court held that judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory, and therefore, not appealable. The Court found grave error on the part of both the RTC and the CA for giving due course to the appeal and for the CA to have not dismissed it outright on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals duly acquired jurisdiction over the appeal on a final and executory judgment of the Regional Trial Court: The Court ruled in the negative. Article 238 of the Family Code provides that procedural rules in Title XI (Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law) shall apply in all cases requiring summary court proceedings and shall be decided expeditiously without regard to technical rules. Crucially, Article 247 of the Family Code explicitly states that the judgment of the court in such proceedings shall be immediately final and executory. This means that no appeal may be taken from such a judgment. The RTC erred in giving due course to the Republic's appeal and transmitting the records to the Court of Appeals. 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 a statutory privilege, and since Article 247 mandates immediate finality, the right to appeal was not granted to any party, including the Republic as oppositor. The Court of Appeals should have dismissed the appeal outright on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, rather than denying it on the merits. On the issue of whether the factual and legal bases for a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code were duly established in this case: While the Court found that the RTC decision was immediately final and executory and thus not appealable, and that the CA should have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the Court also noted that the RTC decision was rendered within the bounds of Article 41 of the Family Code. The respondent had presented evidence showing that her husband had been absent for nine years with no communication, which satisfied the requirement of Article 41 for a declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage. However, the primary error was procedural: the appeal itself was improper. The Court emphasized that the finality of the judgment under summary proceedings under the Family Code is a critical aspect of the law, designed for expeditious resolution of certain family matters. The OSG's filing of a notice of appeal and the RTC's action of giving it due course constituted a procedural misstep that deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
Judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory, and thus, no appeal may be taken therefrom. An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a judgment which, by express provision of law, is immediately final and executory.