Republic v. Granada
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Yolanda Cadacio Granada married Cyrus Granada in 1993, and they had a son. In May 1994, Cyrus left for Taiwan to work after his employer closed down. Yolanda claims she received no communication from him thereafter, despite her efforts and those of his relatives to locate him. After nine years of absence, Yolanda filed a petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively dead. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City granted Yolanda's Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved for reconsideration, arguing that Yolanda failed to exert earnest efforts to locate Cyrus and prove a well-founded belief of his death. The RTC denied the motion. The Republic filed a Notice of Appeal, but the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal, ruling that a judgment in a summary proceeding for presumptive death is immediately final and executory and thus not subject to ordinary appeal. The CA denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The Republic filed this Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari, seeking to reverse the CA's Resolutions. The Republic contends that the CA erred in dismissing its appeal, arguing that its prior ruling in Republic v. Jomoc superseded Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino, which established that such judgments are not appealable. The Republic also argues that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's grant of the petition, as Yolanda failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded belief that her absent spouse was dead, citing criteria from Republic v. Nolasco, United States v. Biasbas, and Republic v. Court of Appeals and Alegro. However, the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the CA's ruling, emphasizing that the RTC's decision on the well-founded belief issue was already final and unalterable, and reiterating that judgments in summary proceedings under Article 41 of the Family Code are immediately final and executory, with certiorari being the proper remedy for alleged grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic's appeal on the ground that the RTC decision in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's grant of the Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death under Article 41 of the Family Code based on the evidence presented by the respondent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 23, 2009, and April 3, 2009, which dismissed the Republic's appeal. The Court held that the RTC's judgment declaring Cyrus Granada presumptively dead was immediately final and executory, and therefore, not subject to ordinary appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the CA erred in dismissing the appeal: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding. As such, pursuant to Article 247 of the Family Code, the judgment rendered therein is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties. This principle was reiterated in Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino and Republic v. Tango. The Court clarified that while Republic v. Jomoc dealt with appeals in special proceedings, it did not supersede the rulings on summary proceedings under the Family Code. Therefore, the Republic's filing of a Notice of Appeal was improper, and the CA correctly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed with the Court of Appeals, to question grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. On whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's grant of the petition: The Court acknowledged the Republic's argument that Yolanda failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish a "well-founded belief" that her absent spouse was dead, citing cases like Republic v. Nolasco and Republic v. Court of Appeals and Alegro. These cases emphasize the need for diligent inquiries and honest-to-goodness efforts to ascertain the absentee's whereabouts. However, the Court held that the RTC's ruling on the sufficiency of evidence for the "well-founded belief" was already final and executory. The principle of immutability of judgment dictates that a final and executory decision can no longer be modified or reversed, even if it contains an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. Therefore, despite the Republic's well-taken arguments regarding the evidence, the Court could not disturb the RTC's factual finding.
Main Doctrine
A petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding, and its judgment is immediately final and executory, thus not subject to ordinary appeal. Aggrieved parties may file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.