CASE DIGEST: Republic v. Orcelino-Villanueva; G.R. No. 210929

Republic v. Orcelino-Villanueva

G.R. No. 210929

29 July 2015

Mendoza, J.

Facts:

The Respondent and Romeo were married. While she was working in Singapore, she heard that Romeo left the conjugal home without any information to his whereabouts. When she returned to the Philippines, she inquired from her parents-in-law and common friends but she found no leads to his whereabouts or existence. Likewise, she went to his birthplace and inquired from his relatives.

With these, the Respondent filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of Romeo. Consequently, the RTC granted the petition on the basis of the Respondent's well-founded belief of Romeo's death.

However, OSG filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there was a grave abuse of discretion on the RTC's part in finding that the Respondent had a well-founded belief that Romeo was dead. But it dismissed the petition holding that the RTC RTC acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the assailed decision having been expressly clothed with the power to determine the case.

Hence, this petition for review in certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

Whether there was a well grounded belief on the Respondent's part that Romeo was dead in order to grant the petition for presumptive death.

Ruling:

No. There was no well grounded belief on the Respondent part that Romeo was already dead.

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision.

Pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code, before a judicial declaration of presumptive death may be granted, the present spouse must prove that she has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead. 

In this case, the Respondent failed to prove the same. The well-founded belief requires the present spouse to prove that her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse and from which she believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. 

Noteworthy, it necessitates exertion of active effort and not a mere passive one. Mere absence of the spouse (even beyond the period required by law), lack of any news that the absentee spouse is still alive, mere failure to communicate, or general presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not suffice. 

Under the said Artcile, the present spouse has the burden of complying with the stringent requirement of well-founded belief. This can only be discharged upon a showing of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but, more importantly, whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead.

In this case, Edna claimed that she took a leave from work and returned to the Philippines and look for her husband. She then inquired from her parents-in-law, common friends and other relatives of her husbands  to determine the whereabouts and the status of her husband. However, she received negative responses from them because none of them had knowledge of the existence of her husband who had been missing for 15 years.

Applying the said standard, Edna's efforts failed to satisfy the required well-founded belief of her absent husband's death.

Moreover, the claim of making diligent search and inquiries remained unfounded as it merely consisted of bare assertions without any corroborative evidence on record. Be it noted that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Thus, the Court cannot give credence to her claims that she indeed exerted diligent efforts to locate her husband.

Therefore, her efforts were not diligent and serious enough to give meaning to her well-founded belief that Romeo was already dead. Her petition should have been denied at first instance.