Republic v. Narceda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Robert P. Narceda married Marina B. Narceda, who was 17 years and 4 months old at the time of their wedding. Marina left for Singapore in 1994 and has not been heard from since. Robert P. Narceda filed a petition for judicial declaration of presumptive death of Marina, citing her prolonged absence and his desire to remarry. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, declaring Marina presumptively dead. Procedural History: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that Robert P. Narceda failed to conduct a legally sufficient search for his wife. The CA dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because judgments in summary proceedings for presumptive death are immediately final and executory under the Family Code. The CA's decision was affirmed by its subsequent resolution denying the OSG's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of its appeal. The petitioner argues that the CA erred in ruling it lacked jurisdiction and contends that the respondent failed to establish a well-founded belief that his absentee spouse was dead. The petitioner asserts that the CA had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and review the merits of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Whether respondent failed to establish a well-founded belief that his absentee spouse was dead.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, dismissing the petition. The RTC Decision declaring Marina B. Narceda presumptively dead was declared FINAL and EXECUTORY.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A petition for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is classified as a summary proceeding. Article 247 of the Family Code explicitly states that judgments in summary proceedings are immediately final and executory. Consequently, an ordinary appeal under Rule 42 is not the proper remedy to question such a judgment. The Court reiterated its pronouncements in Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino that 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 in summary proceedings under the Family Code, this right is not granted due to the immediate finality of the judgment. On whether respondent failed to establish a well-founded belief that his absentee spouse was dead: The Court ruled that this issue could no longer be entertained. Since the OSG availed itself of the wrong remedy by filing an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for certiorari, the period for filing the correct remedy was not tolled. Upon the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari, the RTC Decision became unassailable. The Court clarified that while it has concurrent original jurisdiction with the CA and RTC in issuing writs of certiorari, this does not sanction an unrestricted choice of court forum. The proper procedure is to file the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals first, and from its decision, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may be filed with the Supreme Court. Therefore, the OSG's failure to avail of the correct remedy precluded the Court from passing upon the substantive merits of whether a well-founded belief existed.
Main Doctrine
A petition for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding, and the judgment rendered therein is immediately final and executory. The proper remedy to question such a judgment is a petition for certiorari, not an ordinary appeal.