RE: PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OF ROBERTO L. REYES, ERLINDA REYNOSO REYES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JOSE P. ALEJANDRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF …

Reyes versus Alejandro

The Case

This is a petition by Erlinda Reynoso Reyes to have her husband, Roberto L. Reyes, judicially declared an absentee, filed under Rule 107 of the Rules of Court and Article 384 of the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed the petition because the husband left no property, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The case matters because it fixes the true purpose of a judicial declaration of absence: it is a remedy for the protection and administration of the absentee's property, not a device for dissolving a marriage or for any other private convenience of the spouse left behind.

Procedural History

Erlinda Reynoso Reyes filed her petition for declaration of absence before the Court of First Instance of Cavite. After hearing, that court dismissed the petition on the ground that, since Roberto L. Reyes left no properties, there was no necessity to declare him judicially an absentee. Erlinda appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the order of the lower court.

Facts

Erlinda Reynoso Reyes and Roberto L. Reyes were married on March 20, 1960. Sometime in April 1962, the husband left the conjugal home following a misunderstanding over personal matters.

From that time, the wife received no news of her husband, and his whereabouts remained unknown. The spouses acquired no properties during their marriage, and they had no outstanding obligations in favor of anyone. The husband left no will and no property in his name.

On October 25, 1969, Erlinda filed a petition to have her husband declared an absentee, invoking Rule 107 of the New Rules of Court and Article 384 of the Civil Code. She stated that her only purpose was to establish his absence. The trial court dismissed the petition, and she appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not a judicial declaration of absence may be granted where the absentee left no property, rights, or interests requiring administration.
• Whether or not a judicial declaration of absence is necessary before the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage.

Applicable Provisions

Article 384 of the Civil Code provides:

Two years having elapsed without any news about the absentee or since the receipt of the last news, and five years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the administration of his property, his absence may be declared.

This is the provision the wife invoked, and the Court read it as serving the administration of the absentee's property.

Article 381 of the Civil Code provides:

When a person disappears from his domicile, his whereabouts being unknown, and without leaving an agent to administer his property, the judge, at the instance of an interested party, a relative, or a friend, shall appoint a person to represent him in all that may be necessary.

This shows that the provisional measures of absence exist to protect the absentee's interests.

Article 382 of the Civil Code provides:

The judge, in appointing a representative, shall take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights and interests of the absentee.

This confirms that the entire scheme of absence is directed at safeguarding the absentee's property and interests.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a judicial declaration of absence is proper only when the absentee has properties that must be cared for or administered by a representative appointed by the Court. Since neither the petition alleged nor the evidence showed that Roberto L. Reyes had any rights, interest, or property in the Philippines, there was no point in judicially declaring him an absentee. The Court affirmed the trial court's reasoning that the provisions on absence are concerned with absence only with reference to its effects on property, and that the declaration must serve a specific purpose, namely the protection of the absentee's interest or property.

On the second issue, the Court held that a judicial declaration of absence is not necessary for the celebration of a subsequent civil marriage. Quoting its earlier ruling in Jones versus Hortiguela:

For the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee. The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee.

The Court explained that the need to have a person judicially declared an absentee arises when he has properties to be administered by a representative appointed by the Court, when the spouse of the absentee asks for separation of property, or when the wife asks that the administration of all classes of property in the marriage be transferred to her. The petition to declare the husband an absentee and the petition to place the management of the conjugal properties in the hands of the wife may even be combined and adjudicated in the same proceedings.

Doctrine

A judicial declaration of absence under Article 384 of the Civil Code is not a remedy that issues as a matter of course upon proof of the lapse of the statutory period. It is a remedy directed at the effects of absence on property. The rule a Bar candidate should retain is this: the declaration of absence is proper only when the absentee has rights, interests, or property in the Philippines that require the appointment of a representative or administrator for their protection and administration. Absent such property, there is no necessity for the declaration, and the petition must fail.

Corollarily, a judicial declaration of absence is not a prerequisite to the celebration of a subsequent civil marriage by the spouse present. The civil marriage law requires only the fact of absence for the prescribed period, lack of knowledge that the former spouse is living, and the general reputation and belief that the former spouse is dead.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court dismissing the petition to declare Roberto L. Reyes an absentee, with costs against the petitioner-appellant.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a declaration of absence exists for the administration of the absentee's property, so where there is no property, there is no point in declaring him an absentee. Examiners use this case to test whether a student knows that a judicial declaration of absence is not required before the spouse present may remarry, and that the remedy is tied to property under Articles 381, 382, and 384 of the Civil Code.