Republic v. Fenol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leilanie Dela Cruz Fenol married Reneto Alilongan Suminguit on July 8, 2000, and they had a child. In January 2001, Reneto left their home to apply for work abroad in Manila and had not returned or communicated with his family since. His whereabouts remained unknown for over eight years. Procedural History: Respondent Leilanie Dela Cruz Fenol filed a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death of Reneto Alilongan Suminguit on November 16, 2009, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan, Cotabato. The RTC granted the petition on April 15, 2011, declaring Reneto presumptively dead. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The OSG then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision on November 28, 2013. The CA denied the OSG's motion for reconsideration on May 26, 2014. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. The OSG argued that the CA erred in dismissing its petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy and contended that the efforts made by the respondent to locate her husband were insufficient to establish a well-founded belief that he was dead, contrary to the findings of the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the OSG's petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy. Whether respondent Leilanie Dela Cruz Fenol exerted sufficient efforts to establish a well-founded belief that her husband, Reneto Alilongan Suminguit, was already dead.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 28, 2013, and the Resolution dated May 26, 2014, of the Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 05084[-MIN] are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition of respondent Leilanie Dela Cruz Fenol to have her husband, Reneto Alilongan Suminguit, declared presumptively dead is DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of the remedy: The Court held that 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. While this means it cannot be appealed, the OSG may file an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the appellate court to question grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the RTC. The CA erred in dismissing the OSG's petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy, as this Court has consistently held that certiorari lies to challenge decisions in such summary proceedings. The OSG correctly availed of the proper remedy. On the substantive issue of well-founded belief: The Court found that respondent failed to satisfy the "well-founded belief" requirement under Article 41 of the Family Code. The "well-founded belief" necessitates diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse and ascertain if they are dead, requiring active, not passive, exertion. The Court found respondent's efforts insufficient: she went to Manila for seven months and to Reneto's birthplace in Davao del Norte to inquire from his relatives, but she relied on their uncorroborated statements without further inquiry from neighbors or disinterested persons. She did not present Reneto's relatives as witnesses to attest to her inquiries. Her working abroad did not bolster her claim as it was not shown she specifically looked for Reneto there. Furthermore, she failed to report the disappearance to the police or local government unit, or coordinate with the Philippine consul while abroad, actions expected of a person of ordinary prudence. A claim of diligent search requires evidentiary support, and mere allegations are insufficient; respondent failed to discharge this burden of proof.
Main Doctrine
The "well-founded belief" in the absentee's death requires the present spouse to prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse and that based on these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. Mere absence, lack of news, or failure to communicate are insufficient.