The Supreme Court, in Valdez v. Republic, clarified that under the Civil Code, no separate court declaration is needed for the presumption of death to arise after a spouse has been absent for seven years. This means that if a person remarries after their spouse has been absent for this period, the subsequent marriage is valid, regardless of a court declaration. The court emphasized that the Family Code’s stricter ‘well-founded belief’ requirement does not retroactively invalidate marriages celebrated under the Civil Code. This decision protects the validity of second marriages entered into under the presumption of death established by the Civil Code, ensuring legal certainty for those who relied on these provisions before the Family Code took effect.

Love After Loss: When Does Absence Make the Heart (and the Law) Grow Fonder?

Angelita Valdez married Sofio Polborosa in 1971, but he left her in 1972. After a brief reappearance in 1975, he vanished again. Believing him dead, Angelita married Virgilio Reyes in 1985. However, Virgilio’s naturalization application in the U.S. was denied because Angelita’s marriage to Sofio was deemed still valid. This prompted Angelita to seek a declaration of Sofio’s presumptive death. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed her petition, stating that she failed to prove a ‘well-founded belief’ that Sofio was dead, as required by the Family Code. This case raises a crucial question: Which law applies—the Civil Code or the Family Code—when determining the validity of a second marriage after the prolonged absence of the first spouse?

The Supreme Court addressed a procedural issue first, noting that the appeal involved a pure question of law—the correct application of legal principles to undisputed facts. The court emphasized that the RTC erred in applying the Family Code, specifically Article 41, which requires a ‘well-founded belief’ of the absent spouse’s death before a subsequent marriage can be considered valid. The court highlighted that Angelita’s marriages to both Sofio and Virgilio occurred under the Civil Code, making its provisions the governing legal framework. Article 83 of the Civil Code states:

Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance, unless:

(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or

(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, of if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead according to Articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court.

Building on this principle, the Court referred to Article 390 of the Civil Code, which establishes a presumption of death after an absence of seven years, regardless of whether the absentee is known to be alive. This presumption, however, is not absolute and is subject to certain exceptions, particularly concerning succession rights. Article 390 of the Civil Code states:

Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.

The Supreme Court also cited previous cases to support its interpretation. In Jones v. Hortigüela, the Court clarified that for civil marriage purposes, a judicial declaration of absence is unnecessary. It is sufficient that the former spouse has been absent for seven years, the present spouse has no knowledge of the former spouse being alive, the former spouse is generally reputed to be dead, and the present spouse believes so at the time of the second marriage. The presumption of death arises by operation of law, eliminating the need for a separate court proceeding to declare it.

This approach contrasts with the Family Code’s requirement of a ‘well-founded belief,’ which necessitates diligent efforts to locate the missing spouse. However, since Angelita’s second marriage occurred before the Family Code’s enactment, this stricter standard does not apply. The Court emphasized that applying the Family Code retroactively would prejudice vested rights, violating Article 256, which states that the Code should not impair rights acquired under the Civil Code or other laws.

To further clarify the matter, the Court cited In re Szatraw, which held that a petition for a judicial declaration of presumptive death is unnecessary and unauthorized by law when the presumption arises from the Civil Code’s provisions. The Supreme Court also reiterated this ruling in Lukban v. Republic and Gue v. Republic, emphasizing that a court declaration is superfluous since the presumption of death is already established by law after the required period of absence. Therefore, because Sofio had been absent for more than seven years by 1985, the law presumes he was already dead at the time of Angelita’s second marriage.

Given this legal framework, the Court concluded that Angelita was capacitated to marry Virgilio in 1985, and their marriage is valid under the Civil Code. The Court acknowledged that the Family Code, enacted in 1988, cannot retroactively invalidate a marriage that was validly contracted under the Civil Code. Therefore, while the petition for a judicial declaration of presumptive death was denied, the Court explicitly affirmed the validity of Angelita’s marriage to Virgilio. The Supreme Court addressed a procedural issue first, noting that the appeal involved a pure question of law—the correct application of legal principles to undisputed facts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the Family Code’s ‘well-founded belief’ requirement for presumptive death should apply retroactively to a marriage celebrated under the Civil Code.
What is the ‘well-founded belief’ requirement?	It’s a provision in the Family Code requiring a spouse to conduct diligent inquiries to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse before remarrying.
When does the presumption of death arise under the Civil Code?	Under the Civil Code, the presumption of death arises after the absent spouse has been missing for seven consecutive years.
Does the Civil Code require a court declaration for the presumption of death?	No, the Civil Code does not require a separate court declaration for the presumption of death to arise after the seven-year period.
How did the court apply the laws in this case?	The court applied the Civil Code because Angelita’s marriage to Virgilio occurred before the Family Code took effect, thus, the provisions of the Civil Code governs the issue.
What did the court decide about Angelita’s second marriage?	The court declared that Angelita was capacitated to marry Virgilio in 1985, and their marriage is valid under the Civil Code, stating Sofio was already presumed dead at that point.
Why didn’t the Family Code apply in this case?	The Family Code did not apply retroactively because it would prejudice the vested rights Angelita acquired under the Civil Code when she remarried.
What is the significance of Article 256 of the Family Code?	Article 256 provides that the Family Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Valdez v. Republic reinforces the principle that laws should not be applied retroactively to impair vested rights. It protects the validity of marriages entered into under the presumption of death established by the Civil Code, ensuring legal certainty for individuals who relied on these provisions before the enactment of the Family Code.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Valdez v. Republic, G.R. No. 180863, September 08, 2009