IN RE: SUMMARY PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTION OF DEATH OF HUSBAND EDGAR MORALES FERNANDEZ, JUVY ANN RAGADIO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. EDGAR MORALES FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT,

Juvy Ann Ragadio versus Edgar Morales Fernandez

The Case

This is a petition brought by Juvy Ann Ragadio against her absent husband, Edgar Morales Fernandez, seeking a judicial declaration that he is presumed dead under Article 41 of the Family Code so that she may contract a subsequent marriage. The case matters because it joins two lessons every examinee must carry: the stringent evidentiary standard of a well-founded belief, and the procedural rule that judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory, so that no appeal lies from them.

Procedural History

Juvy Ann filed a petition for declaration of presumption of death of her husband before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Iba, Zambales. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, finding that she had failed to prove the essential requisites, particularly a well-founded belief that her husband was already dead. Juvy Ann appealed the dismissal. The Republic of the Philippines, as oppositor, did not file an appellee's brief. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which dismissed it both for lack of jurisdiction and for lack of merit, and ordered that the final and executory decision of the trial court stand.

Facts

On January 21, 1994, Edgar Morales Fernandez and Juvy Ann Ragadio were married before the Municipal Mayor of Castillejos, Zambales. After the wedding, Edgar returned to work in Manila. Their daughter, Katherine Jelle, was born of the marriage.

On June 12, 1994, Edgar came back to Zambales and told his wife that he was involved in a homicide case and needed to hide in Mindanao. He also told her that he would enlist with the Civilian Armed Force Geographical Unit. From that day on, and for the next eighteen years, Edgar never communicated with his wife, and she received no news about him, giving rise to a belief that he may already be dead.

On October 4, 2012, Juvy Ann filed a petition for declaration of presumption of death of her husband under Article 41 of the Family Code. The trial court dismissed it, reasoning that she had presented no evidence of any overt acts or efforts to ascertain whether her husband was already dead, and that his mere failure to communicate for almost eighteen years was insufficient to support a well-founded belief.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal may be entertained, considering that judgments in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory.
• Whether or not there is a well-founded belief that the missing spouse is already dead, based on his departure for Mindanao, his enlistment with the Civilian Armed Force Geographical Unit, and his absence for more than eighteen years.

Applicable Provisions

Article 41 of the Family Code provides:

Article 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 had 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 provision 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 absentee.

This is the provision under which Juvy Ann sought the declaration, and it supplies both the four-year absence and the well-founded belief that she was bound to prove.

Article 247 of the Family Code provides:

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

This provision governs the summary proceeding Juvy Ann instituted, and it is the basis for the Court's holding that no appeal lay from the trial court's judgment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the petition was a summary judicial proceeding in family law, Article 247 of the Family Code applied, and the judgment of the trial court was immediately final and executory. The Court recalled its ruling in Republic of the Philippines versus Cantor, quoting it with approval:

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, are immediately final and executory.

The Court stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, and that an appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a judgment which, by express provision of law, is immediately final and executory. The trial court therefore erred in giving due course to the appeal and in ordering the transmittal of the records, since its judgment had already attained finality and had become immutable and unalterable. The Court added that a party aggrieved by such a decision may file a petition for certiorari on the ground of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, but no such petition was filed within the sixty-day period, despite receipt of the decision by Juvy Ann's counsel on August 15, 2013.

On the second issue, even setting aside the procedural defect, the Court held that Juvy Ann failed to establish the essential requisite of a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead. The Court explained that the present spouse must prove that her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse, and that it requires the exertion of active effort, not a mere passive one. It laid down the criteria:

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 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 the present spouse.

No evidence showed proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries, particularly in Mindanao, the husband's purported destination. There was no showing that Juvy Ann reported his absence to the police or sought the aid of authorities, no relatives, neighbors, or friends were presented as witnesses, and no corroborative evidence supported her claim of a diligent search. The bare allegation of no communication for more than eighteen years fell short of the strict standard, since mere absence, lack of news, and failure to communicate do not suffice. The Court noted that the strict standard must be applied because Article 41 has at times been resorted to by parties wishing to remarry knowing that their missing spouses are alive and well, and because the State's policy is to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage and the family.

Doctrine

• A judgment rendered in a summary judicial proceeding under the Family Code is immediately final and executory under Article 247, and no appeal lies from it; the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and an appellate court acquires no jurisdiction over such a judgment.
• The remedy of an aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari on the ground of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, filed within the sixty-day period.
• Under Article 41, the present spouse bears the burden of proving a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is dead, which must be the result of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and active efforts to ascertain the absentee's whereabouts and whether he is alive or dead.
• Mere absence for the required period, lack of news, and failure to communicate do not suffice to establish a well-founded belief.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for lack of merit, and the final and executory decision of the trial court dismissing the petition stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a judgment in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death is immediately final and executory, so it cannot be appealed, and the well-founded belief required by Article 41 demands active, honest-to-goodness inquiries, not mere passive waiting. Examiners use this case to test the finality rule under Article 247 and the strict evidentiary standard for presumptive death.