REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARIA FE ESPINOSA CANTOR | G.R. No. 184621 | Dece!

e"
1#$ 2#1%
DOCTRINES&
Article 41 of the Family Code imposes a s'"(c'e" s')*+)"+$ requiring a "well-founded belief" that the
absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be granted.
"ell-founded belief" is not defined under the law. !owever" its determination remains on a case-to-
case basis. #o be able to comply with this requirement" the present spouse must prove that his$her
belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse and
that based on these efforts and inquiries" he$she believes that under the circumstances" the absent
spouse is already dead. %t requires e&ertion of active effort" not a mere passive one.
#he Family Code was e&plicit that the court's (udgment in summary proceedings" such as the
declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code" shall be
immediately final and e&ecutor and thus" not appealable. !owever" an aggrieved party in this
proceeding may file a petition for certiorari under )ule *+ of the )ules of Court to question any abuse
of discretion amounting to lac, or e&cess of (urisdiction that transpired.
FACTS&
-aria Fe and .erry were married on /eptember 01" 1223. #hey lived together as husband and wife in
their con(ugal dwelling in Agan !omes" 4oronadal City" /outh Cotabato.
/ometime in .anuary 1225" the couple had a violent quarrel brought about by6 718 the -aria Fe's
inability to reach "se&ual clima&" whenever she and .erry would have intimate moments9 and 708
.erry's e&pression of animosity toward the respondent's father.
After their quarrel" .erry left their con(ugal dwelling and this was the last time that the -aria Fe ever
saw him. /ince then" she had not seen" communicated nor heard anything from .erry or about his
whereabouts.
-ore than 4 years from the time of .erry's disappearance" -aria Fe filed before the )#C a petition for
her husband's declaration of presumptive death.
-aria Fe claimed that she had a well-founded belief that .erry was already dead. /he alleged that
she had inquired from her mother-in-law" her brothers-in-law" her sisters-in-law" as well as her
neighbors and friends" but to no avail. %n the hopes of finding .erry" she also allegedly made it a point
to chec, the patients' directory whenever she went to a hospital. All these earnest efforts" the
respondent claimed" proved futile" prompting her to file the petition in court.
#he )#C granted -aria Fe's petition and declaring .erry presumptively dead" pursuant to Article 41 of
the Family Code of the :hilippines" without pre(udice to the effect of the reappearance of the absent
spouse .erry F. Cantor.
%n the :etition for Certiorari filed by the petitioner" the CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the
)#C's part and fully affirmed the )#C's order.
:etitioner appealed before the /upreme Court. :etitioner posits that -aria Fe did not have a well-
founded belief to (ustify the declaration of her husband's presumptive death and that the respondent
failed to conduct the requisite diligent search for her missing husband.
ISSUES&
,1- hether certiorari lies to challenge the decisions" (udgments or final orders of trial courts in
petitions for declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family
Code; < .ES
,2- hether the respondent had a well-founded belief that .erry is already dead; < NO
RULING6
%n /ummary .udicial :roceedings under the Family Code" there is no reglementary period within which to
perfect an appeal" precisely because (udgments rendered under it" by e&press provision of Article 043"
Family Code are "immediately final and e&ecutory." #herefore" it was erroneous on the part of the )#C to
give due course to the )epublic's appeal and order the transmittal of the entire records of the case to the
Court of Appeals. #he appellate court acquires no (urisdiction to review a (udgment which" by e&press
provision of law" is immediately final and e&ecutory.
!owever" a losing party in this proceeding is not entirely left without a remedy. An aggrieved party may file
a petition for certiorari under )ule *+ of the )ules of Court to question any abuse of discretion amounting
to lac, or e&cess of (urisdiction that transpired.
=y e&press provision of law" the (udgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final
and e&ecutory. As a matter of course" it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial court>s (udgment ina
summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the
Family Code. !owever" an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion
amounting to lac, of (urisdiction. /uch petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with
the ?octrine of !ierarchy of Courts. #o be sure" even if the Court>s original (urisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari is concurrent with the )#Cs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases" such concurrence does
not sanction an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
The Essential Requisites for the Declaration of Presumptive Death Under Article 41 of the Family
Code
@nder Article 41 of the Family Code" there are 4 essential requisites for the declaration of presumptive
death6
1. #hat 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 A21"
Civil Code9
0. #hat the present spouse wishes to remarry9
A. #hat the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead9 and
4. #hat the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee.
#he present spouse has the burden of proof to show that all the requisites under Article 41 of the Family
Code are present. /ince it is the present spouse who" for purposes of declaration of presumptive death"
substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue" it stands to reason that the burden of proof lies with
him$her. !e who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.
Article 41 of the Family Code imposes a s'"(c'e" s')*+)"+$ requiring a "well-founded belief" that the
absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be granted. #he law
did not define what is meant by "well-founded belief." %t depends upon the circumstances of each
particular case. %ts determination" so to spea," remains on a case-to-case basis. #o be able to comply
with this requirement" the present spouse must prove that his$her belief was the result of diligent and
reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse and that based on these efforts and inquiries"
he$she believes that under the circumstances" the absent spouse is already dead. %t requires e&ertion of
active effort 7not a mere passive one8.
-aria Fe's "well-founded belief" was anchored on her alleged "earnest efforts" to locate .erry" which
consisted of the following6 718 /he made inquiries about .erry's whereabouts from her in-laws" neighbors
and friends9 and 708 henever she went to a hospital" she saw to it that she loo,ed through the patients'
directory" hoping to find .erry. !owever" these efforts fell short of the "stringent standard" and degree of
diligence required by (urisprudence for the following reasons6
First, -aria Fe did not actively loo, for her missing husband. %t can be inferred from the records that her
hospital visits and her consequent chec,ing of the patients' directory therein were unintentional. /he did
not purposely underta,e a diligent search for her husband as her hospital visits were not planned nor
primarily directed to loo, for him.
Second" she did not report .erry's absence to the police nor did she see, the aid of the authorities to loo,
for him. hile a finding of well-founded belief varies with the nature of the situation" it is proper and
prudent for a present spouse" whose spouse had been missing" to see, the aid of the authorities or" at the
very least" report his$her absence to the police.
Third" she did not present as witnesses .erry's relatives or their neighbors and friends" who can
corroborate her efforts to locate .erry.
Lastly" there was no other corroborative evidence to support the respondent's claim that she conducted a
diligent search. Beither was there supporting evidence proving that she had a well-founded belief other
than her bare claims that she inquired from her friends and in-laws about her husband's whereabouts. %n
sum" the Court is of the view that the respondent merely engaged in a "passive search" where she relied
on uncorroborated inquiries from her in-laws" neighbors and friends. /he failed to conduct a diligent
search because her alleged efforts are insufficient to form a well-founded belief that her husband was
already dead.