REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. EDNA ORCELINO-VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 210929, July 29, 2015

Case Digest 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. EDNA ORCELINO-VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 210929, July 29, 2015

Facts:Edna and Romeo were married on December 21, 1978, in Iligan City.

In 1992, Edna worked as domestic helper in Singapore while her husband worked as a mechanic in Valencia City, Bukidnon. In 1993, Edna heard the news from her children that Romeo had left their conjugal home without reason or information as to his whereabouts.

Thereafter, Edna took a leave from work and returned to the country to look for Romeo. She inquired from her parents-in-law and common friends in Iligan City. Still, she found no leads as to his whereabouts or existence. She also went to his birthplace in Escalante, Negros Oriental, and inquired from his relatives. 

On August 6, 2009, Edna filed before the RTC a petition5 to declare Romeo presumptively dead under Article 41 of the Family Code.

During the trial, Edna was presented as the lone witness. In its October 8, 2009 Order,6 the RTC granted the petition on the basis of her well-founded belief of Romeo's death.

ISSUES 

I.WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RTC DECISION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE RTC IS CONTRARY TO PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE. 

II.WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER TO ASSAIL THE RTC DECISION ARE MERE ERRORS OF JUDGMENT.12

Ruling of the Court -The Court grants the petition. 

Article 41 of the Family Code provides that before a judicial declaration of presumptive death may be granted, the present spouse must prove that he/she has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead.14 In this case, Edna failed. The RTC and the CA overlooked Edna's patent non-compliance with the said requirement. The well-founded belief in the absentee's death requires the present spouse to prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts 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. It necessitates exertion of active effort (not a mere passive one). Mere absence of the spouse (even beyond the period required by law), lack of any news that the absentee spouse is still alive, mere failure to communicate, or general presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not suffice.15 The premise is that Article 41 of the Family Code places upon the present spouse the burden of complying with the stringent requirement of well-founded belief which can only be discharged upon a showing of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but, more importantly, whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead.16chanrobleslaw

This strict standard approach ensures that a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is not used as a tool to conveniently circumvent the laws in light of the State's policy to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage. Courts should never allow procedural shortcuts but instead should see to it that the stricter standard required by the Family Code is met.17chanrobleslaw

In this case, Edna claimed to have done the following to determine the whereabouts and the status of her husband:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

1. She took a vacation/leave of absence from her work and returned to the Philippines to look for her husband. 

2. She inquired from her parents-in-law in Iligan City and from their common friends in the same city and in Valencia City.

3. She went as far as the birthplace of her husband in Escalante, Negros Oriental, so she could inquire from her husband's relatives.

Despite her efforts, she averred that she received negative responses from them because none of them had knowledge of the existence of her husband who had been missing for 15 years.

Applying the standard set forth by the Court in the previously cited cases, particularly Cantor, Edna's efforts failed to satisfy the required well-founded belief of her absent husband's death. 

Her claim of making diligent search and inquiries remained unfounded as it merely consisted of bare assertions without any corroborative evidence on record. She also failed to present any person from whom she inquired about the whereabouts of her husband. She did not even present her children from whom she learned the disappearance of her husband. In fact, she was the lone witness. Following the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof,21 the Court cannot give credence to her claims that she indeed exerted diligent efforts to locate her husband.

Moreover, no document was submitted to corroborate the allegation that her husband had been missing for at least fifteen (15) years already. As the OSG observed, there was not even any attempt to seek the aid of the authorities at the time her husband disappeared

Verily, it makes sense to conclude that her efforts were not diligent and serious enough to give meaning to her well-founded belief that Romeo was already dead. Suffice it to state that her petition should have been denied at the first instance. The RTC, however, granted it, reasoning 

xxx that it was in 1993 when the petitioner while abroad heard the news from her children that her husband left their conjugal home xxx without informing the children nor communicating with the herein petitioner as to the reasons why he left their family abode nor giving them any information as to his whereabouts; that herein petitioner took vacation/leave of absence from her work and return to the Philippines, in order to look for her husband and made some inquiries with her parents-in-law in Iligan City, from their common friends in Iligan City and in Valencia City, and even went as far as the birthplace of her husband, particularly at Escalante, Negros Oriental, inquiring from her husband's relatives, but she only got negative response from them since none of them have any knowledge as to the present existence of her husband that since the year 1993 up to the present, a period of about fifteen [15] years have elapsed, the person and the body of petitioner's husband could not be found, located nor traced as there is no any information as to his existence or whereabouts.23

Worse, the CA affirmed the RTC decision when it dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the OSG. The CA should have realized the glaring and patent disregard by the RTC of the rulings in similar situations where petitions for declaration of presumptive death have been denied by this Court. By declaring Romeo presumptively dead, the CA clearly ignored this Court's categorical pronouncements. 

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the October 18, 2013 Decision and the January 8, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition of respondent Edna Orcelino-Villanueva to have her husband declared presumptively dead is DENIED.