The Supreme Court has ruled that a court declaration of presumptive death is not required for claiming death benefits of a missing military serviceman from the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) or the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). These agencies can independently assess the evidence to determine if the presumption of death applies under the Civil Code. This decision clarifies that the presumption of death arises by operation of law, streamlining the process for families seeking benefits and ensuring that they are not unduly burdened by unnecessary court proceedings. It also aims to correct a common misconception that a court order is always needed.

Lost at War, Found in Law: Can a Soldier’s Wife Claim Benefits Without a Death Certificate?

Estrellita Tadeo-Matias sought a declaration of presumptive death for her husband, Wilfredo, a Philippine Constabulary member missing since 1979. Her goal was to claim benefits under P.D. No. 1638. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted her petition, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, stating that a petition solely for declaring presumptive death under the Civil Code is not allowed. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s decision. This case highlights a crucial point: while the law provides for a presumption of death after a certain period of absence, using this presumption to claim benefits doesn’t always require a separate court action.

The Supreme Court clarified that the RTC incorrectly based its decision on Article 41 of the Family Code, which applies only when the surviving spouse intends to remarry. Estrellita was not seeking to remarry. Instead, her claim was based on Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code, which outline the general rules for presuming death after a period of absence or under specific circumstances, such as being missing in military service. Article 390 states that after an absence of seven years, with no knowledge of the person’s whereabouts, they are presumed dead for all purposes except succession. Article 391 specifies that a person missing in action during war for four years is presumed dead for all purposes, including estate division.

However, the Court emphasized that a petition whose sole objective is to declare a person presumptively dead under the Civil Code is not a valid suit in the Philippines. This principle stems from the 1948 case of In re: Petition for the Presumption of Death of Nicolai Szatraw, which established that a presumption of death is merely a rule of evidence. This rule can be invoked in an existing action or proceeding but cannot be the subject of an independent action.

The Court further explained that allowing such petitions would be impractical and unnecessary. According to Szatraw:

The rule invoked by the latter is merely one of evidence which permits the court to presume that a person is dead after the fact that such person had been unheard from in seven years had been established… Independently of such an action or special proceeding, the presumption of death cannot be invoked, nor can it be made the subject of an action or special proceeding.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the presumption of death already exists by law. A separate court declaration doesn’t make it any more valid or binding. It remains a prima facie presumption, meaning it can be disputed with evidence to the contrary. For this reason, the Supreme Court in Szatraw, Lukban v. Republic, and Gue v. Republic has consistently disallowed petitions for declaration of presumptive death based on Article 390 of the Civil Code.

The Supreme Court acknowledged a misconception that a court declaration is required to establish presumptive death for claiming death benefits. This misconception has led to unnecessary difficulties for claimants. The Court then clarified its position and issued guidelines for processing claims of death benefits for missing soldiers, emphasizing that the PVAO and the AFP can decide these claims without requiring a court declaration. These agencies can determine, based on the presented evidence, whether the presumption of death under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code applies.

The Court emphasized that the presumption of death arises by operation of law, without needing a court declaration, once the conditions in Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code are met. Requiring a court declaration is improper. Claimants need only present evidence showing the soldier has been missing for the required time and under the specified circumstances. The PVAO or AFP should weigh the evidence and apply the presumption of death if sufficient.

To ensure uniformity and fairness, the Court offered these guidelines:

1. The PVAO and AFP can decide claims of death benefits without a court declaration.
2. Claimants must present evidence of the soldier’s disappearance.
3. The PVAO or AFP will assess the evidence; if sufficient, they should apply the presumption of death and pay the claim.
4. If the claim is denied, claimants can appeal to the Office of the President, then to the Court of Appeals, and finally to the Supreme Court.

By providing these guidelines, the Court aims to prevent future claimants from facing the same difficulties as Estrellita and streamline the process for accessing the benefits they are entitled to.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a court declaration of presumptive death is required to claim death benefits for a missing military serviceman. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not required, clarifying that the PVAO and AFP can make their own determination based on presented evidence.
Why did the Supreme Court deny Estrellita’s petition?	The Supreme Court denied the petition because a separate action for a declaration of presumptive death under the Civil Code is not allowed in the Philippines. The Court held that the presumption of death is a rule of evidence that can be invoked in an existing action, but it cannot be the sole basis for a separate case.
What is Article 41 of the Family Code, and why was it not applicable?	Article 41 of the Family Code allows a spouse to remarry if the other spouse has been absent for four years, provided they have a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is dead. It was not applicable in this case because Estrellita was not seeking a declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage.
What are Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code?	Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code provide the general rules for presuming death after a period of absence or under specific circumstances, such as being missing in military service. These articles establish the legal basis for presuming someone dead, which can then be used for various purposes, including claiming benefits.
What evidence is needed to claim benefits without a court declaration?	To claim benefits without a court declaration, claimants must present evidence showing that the soldier has been missing for the required time and under the circumstances specified in Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code. This evidence can include official service records and affidavits from people familiar with the soldier’s disappearance.
What should claimants do if their claim is denied by the PVAO or AFP?	If a claim is denied by the PVAO or AFP, claimants can file an appeal with the Office of the President (OP). If the OP denies the appeal, the claimant may seek recourse via a petition for review with the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of the Court and, if necessary, appeal by certiorari with the Supreme Court.
How do the new guidelines help families of missing soldiers?	The new guidelines simplify the process for families of missing soldiers by removing the requirement for a court declaration of presumptive death. This streamlines the claims process and reduces the burden on families seeking benefits, as they no longer need to go through a separate legal proceeding.
Why did the dissenting opinion disagree with the majority?	The dissenting opinion argued that the case should have been granted based on equity, given the long period of time that Wilfredo has been missing and Estrellita’s efforts to claim benefits. The dissent also pointed out that the Philippine Veteran’s Affairs Office instructed Estrellita that she needed a court order that establishes her husband as presumptively dead.

This ruling provides much-needed clarity and guidance for families of missing military personnel seeking death benefits. By removing the requirement for a court declaration, the Supreme Court has streamlined the process and ensured that these families can access the benefits they are entitled to without unnecessary legal hurdles. This decision acknowledges the sacrifices made by military members and the challenges faced by their families, and it aims to provide a more efficient and compassionate system for processing their claims.

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: ESTRELLITA TADEO-MATIAS v. REPUBLIC, G.R. No. 230751, April 25, 2018