REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (TENTH DIVISION) AND ALAN B. ALEGRO, RESPONDENTS.

Republic versus Alegro

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, against the decision of the Court of Appeals which had affirmed the trial court's grant of a petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by Alan B. Alegro concerning his missing wife, Rosalia Julaton, so that he could contract a subsequent marriage under Article 41 of the Family Code. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clearest statement of what the law means by a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead, and of the diligence a present spouse must actually exert before the State will allow a marriage to be treated as dissolved by presumptive death.

Procedural History

Alan B. Alegro filed his petition for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife in the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 27. The trial court issued an order setting the case for hearing and directing publication, posting, and service on the Solicitor General, the Provincial Prosecutor, and the wife by registered mail. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, moved to dismiss, but the trial court denied the motion for failure to comply with the rules on motions. After hearing, at which neither the Provincial Prosecutor nor the Solicitor General presented opposing evidence, the trial court rendered judgment granting the petition and declaring the absent spouse presumptively dead for purposes of a subsequent marriage under Article 41, without prejudice to the effect of her reappearance.

The Office of the Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court, citing the Court's earlier ruling in Republic versus Nolasco. The Republic then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, insisting that Alan had failed to prove a well-founded belief that his wife was already dead and had not exercised reasonable and diligent efforts to locate her.

Facts

Alan and Rosalia, called Lea, were married in January 1995 in Catbalogan, Samar. Barely a month later, in the evening of February 6, 1995, Lea came home late and Alan berated her for always being out of the house, telling her that if she enjoyed the life of a single person it would be better for her to return to her parents. Lea did not reply. The next day, when Alan left for work, Lea was still in the house, but when he came home she was gone. He assumed she had merely gone to her parents' house, but she never returned.

On February 14, 1995, Alan went to his parents-in-law's house and was told Lea was not there. He looked for her at the house of her friend Janeth Bautista, where he was told Janeth had left for Manila. When he returned to his parents-in-law, his father-in-law told him that Lea had been there but had left without notice. He sought the help of Barangay Captain Juan Magat and asked friends, to no avail. In August 1995 he went to Manila, visited the house in Navotas where Janeth stayed, and was told she had not seen Lea. He worked part-time as a taxi driver and searched the malls in his free time, then returned to Catbalogan in 1997 and searched again without success.

Only in June 2001, after the Republic had moved to dismiss his petition, did Alan report Lea's disappearance to the local police, which issued an alarm notice, and in July 2001 to the National Bureau of Investigation. Barangay Captain Magat corroborated Alan's testimony. Lea's father, who owned Radio DYMS, told the barangay captain he did not know where she was. The trial court granted the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the present spouse in a petition for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code must prove a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead.
• Whether or not Alan B. Alegro proved such a well-founded belief through proper and honest inquiries and diligent efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of his wife.

Applicable Provisions

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 had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

This is the substantive rule that fixes the burden on the present spouse and defines the belief that must be shown.

The same Article continues:

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.

This is the procedural vehicle Alan used, and it is why the summary nature of the proceeding does not lower the standard of proof.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the spouse present is burdened to prove both the fact of absence and a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead before a subsequent marriage may be contracted. The law does not define the phrase, but the Court adopted the teaching of Cuello Callon that the belief must be firm and founded on rational motives. Belief is a state of mind provable by direct or circumstantial evidence, and any fact about the character, habits, conditions, attachments, prosperity, and objects of life of the absentee which usually control the conduct of men is competent evidence on the ultimate question of death.

On the second issue, the Court held that the belief must be the result of proper and honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether that spouse is still alive or already dead. The Court warned against collusion, recalling Republic versus Nolasco and the maxim that men readily believe what they wish to be true. Measuring Alan's conduct against that standard, the Court found the proof wanting. He presented no witness other than the barangay captain, and failed to present Janeth Bautista, Nelson Abaenza, or anyone else from whom he claimed to have made inquiries. His own evidence showed that his father-in-law had told him Lea had just been at their house, and yet he made no inquiries of his parents-in-law before filing his petition, even though Lea's father owned a radio station. His reports to the police and the National Bureau of Investigation came only after the Republic moved to dismiss, which the Court called an afterthought.

The Court summed up its conclusion in these words:

In sum, the Court finds and so holds that the respondent failed to prove that he had a well-founded belief, before he filed his petition in the RTC, that his spouse Rosalia (Lea) Julaton was already dead.

Doctrine

Under Article 41 of the Family Code, the present spouse bears the burden of proving the fact of absence and a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. That belief must be firm and founded on rational motives, and it must be the product of proper and honest to goodness inquiries and genuine efforts to ascertain whether the absentee is alive or dead. The standard is not satisfied by perfunctory or belated searches, by failure to present available corroborating witnesses, or by reports to the authorities made only after the petition is challenged. Because the proceeding is summary and the temptation to collude is real, courts must guard against parties who resort to Article 41 to dissolve a marriage they cannot otherwise annul.

Disposition

The Republic won. The Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 27, to dismiss Alan Alegro's petition.

Remember This

Memorize the line that 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. Examiners use this case to test the well-founded belief requirement under Article 41, the burden of proof in summary presumptive death proceedings, and the Court's vigilance against collusion in petitions to remarry.