CASE DIGEST: Republic of the Philippines v. Granada; G.R. No. 187512; 13 June 2012

 Republic of the Philippines v. Granada

G.R. No. 187512

13 June 2012

Sereno, J.         

 

Doctrine: The Ruling of the RTC in Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death of the absent spouse is immediately final and executory, thus, not subject to ordinary appeal. The remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA (hierarchy of courts)on the ground that the court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Only when the same was denied, can the petitioner file an appeal under rule 45 before the Supreme Court on the ground of error on judgment.

 

Facts:

Respondent Yolanda Granada and Cyrus Granada were both working at Sumida Electric Philippines, Eventually, they got married and have a son, Cyborg Dean Granada. However, when Sumida closed down, Cyrus went to Taiwan and seek employment sometime in May 1994.

Respondent claimed that from that time, she had not received any communication from her husband, despite her efforts to locate him. Likewise, her brother testified that he asked Cyrus’ relatives regarding his whereabouts but to no avail.

After 9 years of waiting, Respondent filed a petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively dead. Consequently, RTC declared Cyrus as presumptive dead. But herein petitioner, as represented by OSG, moved for reconsideration. It argued that the Respondent had failed to exert earnest efforts to locate Cyrus and thus failed to prove her well-founded belief that he was already dead. But the same was denied by the RTC.

Petitioner then filed a Notice on Appeal while the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that CA had no jurisdiction over the appeal since her petition was based on Article 41 of the Family Code and a summary judicial proceeding, in which the judgment is immediately final and executory and, thus, not appealable.

The CA, granted Respondent’s motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. the CA ruled that a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Rule 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding. Thus, judgment thereon is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties.

 

The petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied by CA. Hence, this present petition for review under Rule 45.

 

ISSUES:

1. Whether the CA seriously erred in dismissing the Petition on the ground that the Decision of the RTC in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties and, hence, is not subject to ordinary appeal.

2. Whether the CA seriously 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 that respondent presented

 

RULING: No. The CA did not err in dismissing the appeal.

 

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling.

The appellate court noted that a petition for declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage is a summary judicial proceeding under the Family Code. Hence, the RTC Decision therein is immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties, by express provision of Article 247 of the same Code. The decision is therefore not subject to ordinary appeal, and the attempt to question it through a Notice of Appeal is unavailing.

 

Article 41 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

 

Clearly, a petition for declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding "as provided for" under the Family Code.

 

Further, when, taken together, Articles 41, 238, 247 and 253 of the Family Code provide that since a petition for declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding, the judgment of the court therein shall be immediately final and executory.

 

In case of Bermudez-Lorino, it was an error for the Republic to file a Notice of Appeal when the latter elevated the matter to the CA. In Summary Judicial Proceedings under the Family Code, there is no reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal, precisely because judgments rendered thereunder, by express provision of Section 247, Family Code, supra, are "immediately final and executory.

 

In one case, the RTC’s decision was immediately final and executory upon notice to the parties. It was erroneous for the OSG to file a notice of appeal, and for the RTC to give due course thereto. The Court of Appeals acquired no jurisdiction over the case, and should have dismissed the appeal outright on that ground.

 

In this case, the Supreme Court settles the rule on appeal of judgments rendered in summary proceedings under the Family Code and accordingly, refine our previous decisions thereon.

 

Article 238 of the Family Code, under Title XI: SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY LAW, establishes the rules that govern summary court proceedings in the Family Code:

ART. 238. Until modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this Code requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules.

In turn, Article 253 of the Family Code specifies the cases covered by the rules in chapters two and three of the same title. It states:

ART. 253. The foregoing rules in Chapters 2 and 3 hereof shall likewise govern summary proceedings filed under Articles 41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124 and 217, insofar as they are applicable. (Emphasis supplied.)

In plain text, Article 247 in Chapter 2 of the same title reads:

ART 247. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory.

By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. To be sure, even if the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party may then file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. This is because the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.

In sum, under Article 41 of the Family Code, the losing party in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death may file a petition for certiorari with the CA on the ground that, in rendering judgment thereon, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. From the decision of the CA, the aggrieved party may elevate the matter to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

 

Evidently, the CA did not commit any error in dismissing the Republic’s Notice of Appeal on the ground that the RTC judgment on the Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death of respondent’s spouse was immediately final and executory and, hence, not subject to ordinary appeal.

2. 

The Family Code provision prescribes a "well-founded belief" that the absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be granted. In the case of Republic v. Nolasco, the four requisites for the declaration of presumptive death under the Family Code are as follows:

1. That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in Article 391, Civil Code;

2. That the present spouse wishes to remarry;

3. That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead; and

4. That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee.

The spouse present is, thus, burdened to prove that his spouse has been absent and that he has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead before the present spouse may contract a subsequent marriage. The law does not define what is meant by a well-grounded belief.

Belief is a state of the mind or condition prompting the doing of an overt act. It may be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence which may tend, even in a slight degree, to elucidate the inquiry or assist to a determination probably founded in truth. Any fact or circumstance relating to the character, habits, conditions, attachments, prosperity and objects of life which usually control the conduct of men, and are the motives of their actions, was, so far as it tends to explain or characterize their disappearance or throw light on their intentions, competence [sic] evidence on the ultimate question of his death.

The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead. Whether or not the spouse present acted on a well-founded belief of death of the absent spouse depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many circumstances occurring before and after the disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature and extent of the inquiries made by present spouse.

 

Applying these standards to the present case, the petitioner points out that respondent Yolanda did not initiate a diligent search to locate her absent husband.

 

However, the Supreme Court is constrained to deny the Petition. Considering that the RTC’s ruling on the issue of whether respondent was able to prove her "well-founded belief" that her absent spouse was already dead prior to her filing of the Petition to declare him presumptively dead is already final and can no longer be modified or reversed.

 

Settled is the rule that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law.