The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari is the correct way to challenge a lower court’s decision on presumptive death under the Family Code. More importantly, the Court emphasized that declaring someone presumptively dead requires sincere and thorough efforts to find the missing person. This means the spouse seeking the declaration must show real attempts to locate their missing partner, not just passive inquiries. The Court stressed the need for a ‘well-founded belief’ of death, supported by concrete actions, to prevent the misuse of this legal provision for ending marriages easily. This ruling ensures a more rigorous process before a person can be declared presumptively dead and allows their spouse to remarry.

When a Seafarer’s Search Falls Short: Defining ‘Well-Founded Belief’ in Presumptive Death Cases

This case, Republic of the Philippines vs. Jose B. Sareñogon, Jr., arose from a petition filed by Jose to declare his wife, Netchie, presumptively dead so he could remarry. Jose and Netchie married in 1996 but lived together only for a month before Netchie went to Hong Kong as a domestic helper and Jose worked as a seaman. Jose claimed he lost contact with Netchie and, after making some inquiries, filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to declare her presumptively dead. The RTC granted the petition, but the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), challenged the decision, arguing that Jose’s efforts to locate Netchie were insufficient to establish a “well-founded belief” that she was dead. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the Republic’s petition, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether Jose had indeed demonstrated the necessary diligence to justify a declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by clarifying the proper procedure for challenging an RTC decision in a presumptive death case. Citing previous jurisprudence such as Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino, the Court affirmed that such decisions are immediately final and executory, meaning they cannot be appealed in the traditional sense. Instead, the correct remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, questioning whether the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Certiorari is appropriate when a court has acted beyond its powers, or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision. This procedural point was crucial in establishing the framework for reviewing the RTC’s decision in Jose’s case.

Moving to the substance of the case, the Court delved into the requirements of Article 41 of the Family Code, which allows a person to remarry if their previous spouse has been absent for four consecutive years and the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. The Court emphasized that the key element here is the “well-founded belief,” which requires more than just the absence of the spouse or a lack of communication. As the Court stated in Republic v. Cantor:

Before a judicial declaration of presumptive death can be obtained, it must be shown that the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the prior spouse was already dead. Under Article 41 of the Family Code, there are four essential requisites for the declaration of presumptive death:

1. That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in Article 391 of the Civil Code;

2. That the present spouse wishes to remarry;

3. That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead; and

4. That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee.

Building on this principle, the Court underscored that the “well-founded belief” must be the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse. The present spouse must actively exert effort, conducting proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries to ascertain not only the absent spouse’s whereabouts but also whether they are still alive or already deceased. This requirement aims to prevent spouses from using Article 41 as a convenient way to terminate their marriages without genuine attempts to find their missing partners. Here, the Court found Jose’s efforts lacking, characterizing them as a “passive search.”

The Court contrasted Jose’s actions with the required standard of diligence, noting that he primarily relied on inquiries from relatives and friends, without presenting specific evidence of these inquiries or involving relevant government agencies. The Court highlighted examples of what would constitute a more diligent search, such as enlisting the help of the Philippine National Police, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Foreign Affairs, or even reporting the missing person to mass media. These steps would demonstrate a more serious and comprehensive effort to locate the missing spouse. The Court also pointed out that Jose did not present any disinterested witnesses to corroborate his claims, further weakening his case.

This approach contrasts with a mere unsubstantiated inquiry and emphasizes the need for documented efforts and the involvement of relevant authorities. The court also takes into consideration the degree of diligence required in locating a missing spouse. It requires the presentation of witnesses from whom the present spouse allegedly made inquiries especially the absent spouse’s relatives, neighbors, and friends, a report of the missing spouse’s purported disappearance or death to the police or mass media. The present spouse’s evidence would only show that the absent spouse chose not to communicate, but not necessarily that the latter was indeed dead.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a “strict standard” in these cases. This is to ensure that Article 41 of the Family Code is not misused as a tool to circumvent the laws protecting the institution of marriage. The Court recognized the State’s policy to protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution, and therefore, marriage should not be dissolved at the whim of the parties. This policy consideration weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to reverse the CA and dismiss Jose’s petition.

Given the Court’s imposition of the “strict standard”, there was no basis at all for the RTC’s finding that Jose’s Petition complied with the requisites of Article 41 of the Family Code, in reference to the well-founded belief standard. Jose’s efforts to locate the missing Netchie are below the required degree of stringent diligence prescribed by jurisprudence. For, aside from his claims that he had inquired from alleged friends and relatives as to Netchie’s whereabouts, Jose did not call to the witness stand specific individuals or persons whom he allegedly saw or met in the course of his search or quest for the allegedly missing Netchie.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Jose had failed to demonstrate a “well-founded belief” that his wife was dead, as his efforts to locate her were insufficient. The Court reversed the CA’s decision and dismissed Jose’s petition. This ruling reinforces the need for genuine and diligent efforts to locate a missing spouse before seeking a declaration of presumptive death, underscoring the importance of protecting the institution of marriage and preventing its easy dissolution.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Jose Sareñogon had sufficiently demonstrated a ‘well-founded belief’ that his missing wife was dead, as required by Article 41 of the Family Code, to obtain a declaration of presumptive death.
What does ‘well-founded belief’ mean in this context?	‘Well-founded belief’ means the spouse seeking the declaration must show diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the missing spouse, indicating a genuine belief that the person is deceased. It goes beyond mere absence or lack of communication.
What kind of efforts are considered ‘diligent’ in locating a missing spouse?	Diligent efforts include actively searching for the missing spouse, contacting relatives and friends, involving government agencies like the police or DFA, and even reporting the disappearance to mass media.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against Jose Sareñogon?	The Court found Jose’s efforts to be insufficient, as he primarily relied on inquiries from relatives and friends without involving relevant authorities or presenting specific evidence of his search. This was deemed a ‘passive search.’
What is the correct procedure for challenging a lower court’s decision on presumptive death?	The correct procedure is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, questioning whether the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion. Traditional appeals are not allowed because decisions on presumptive death are immediately final and executory.
What is the purpose of requiring a ‘strict standard’ in these cases?	The ‘strict standard’ ensures that Article 41 of the Family Code is not misused as a tool to easily dissolve marriages without genuine attempts to locate the missing spouse. It protects the institution of marriage.
Can a person remarry if their spouse is declared presumptively dead?	Yes, Article 41 of the Family Code allows a person to remarry if their previous spouse has been absent for four consecutive years and declared presumptively dead, provided the ‘well-founded belief’ requirement is met.
What happens if the missing spouse reappears after the declaration of presumptive death and remarriage?	Under Article 42 of the Family Code, the subsequent marriage is automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless the previous marriage has been annulled or declared void ab initio.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Republic vs. Sareñogon serves as a reminder of the high standard of diligence required when seeking a declaration of presumptive death. It underscores the need for genuine and comprehensive efforts to locate a missing spouse, protecting the sanctity of marriage and preventing the misuse of legal provisions for ending marital unions. This case clarifies the procedural and substantive requirements for such declarations, ensuring a more rigorous and conscientious process.

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: Republic of the Philippines vs. Jose B. Sareñogon, Jr., G.R. No. 199194, February 10, 2016