2. The wife was unaware that her husband was a habitual drinker with violent attitude and character and had the propensity to go out with his friends to the point of being unable to work.
3. In 1991 she left him and returned to her parents together with her three children.
4. She went abroad to work for her support her children.
5. From the time she left him, she had no communication with him or his relatives.
6. In 2000, 9 years after leaving her husband, Gloria filed a verified petition with the RTC under the rules on Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law. The lower court issued an order for the publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation.
7. In November 7, 2001, the RTC granted the summary petition.
8. Although the judgment was final and executors under the provisions of Act. 247 of the Family Code, the OSG for the Republic of the Philippines filed a notice of appeal.
Issue:
(1) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS DULY ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE APPEAL ON A FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT;
(2) WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES FOR A JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH UNDER ARTICLE 41 OF THE FAMILY CODE WERE DULY ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE.
Held: No Jurisdiction.
Ruling:
(1) An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a judgment which, by express provision of law, is immediately final and executory.
Since, by express mandate of Article 247 of the Family Code, all judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in Family Law are “immediately final and executory”, the right to appeal was not granted to any of the parties therein.
The Republic of the Philippines, as oppositor in the petition for declaration of presumptive death, should not be treated differently.
It had no right to appeal the RTC decision of November 7, 2001.
(2) Although the result of the Court of Appeals’ denial of the appeal would apparently be the same, there is a big difference between having the supposed appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the RTC decision sought to be appealed is immediately final and executory, and the denial of the appeal for lack of merit.
In the former, the supposed appellee can immediately ask for the issuance of an Entry of Judgment in the RTC, whereas, in the latter, the appellant can still raise the matter to this Court on petition for review and the RTC judgment cannot be executed until this Court makes the final pronouncement.
(3) The Court, therefore, finds in this case grave error on the part of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals.
104. Republic vs. CA
May 6, 2005 – J. Carpio-Morales Facts:
1. Judge Madrona of the RTC granted Apolinaria Jomoc’s application for her husband’s (Clemente) presumptive death, on the basis of his nine year absence.
2. The judge cited Article 41, par. 2 of the Family Code. Said article provides that for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage where the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absent spouse.
3. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought to appeal the trial court’s order, but the court disapproved it, the present case being a special proceeding. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
4. It filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, contending that the declaration of presumptive death of a person under Article 41 of the Family Code is not a special proceeding or a case of multiple or separate appeals requiring a record on appeal. However, this was denied by the CA on procedural lapses and on substantial grounds.
Issue: Is the petition for declaration of the presumptive death of a person in the nature of a special proceeding?
Held: YES.
Ruling:
1. As defined in Section 3(a), Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, “a civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention of redress of a wrong” while a special proceeding under Section 3(c) of the same rule is defined as “a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact (Heirs of Yaptinchay, et al. v. Del Rosario, et al., G.R. No. 124320, March 2, 1999).
2. Considering the distinction, this Court finds that the instant petition a special proceeding. The petition merely seeks for a
declaration by the trial court of the presumptive death of absentee spouse Clemente Jomoc.
3. Article 41 of the Family Code, upon which the trial court anchored its grant of the petition for the declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse, 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 spouses had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouses was already dead… For the purpose pf contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouses 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 a reappearance of the absent spouse.
4. Since Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY LAW, contains the following provision, inter alia:
Art. 238. Unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this Codes requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules.
5. That the Family Code provision on repeal, Art. 254, provides as follows:
Art. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended, and all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent therewith are hereby repealed.
This seals the case in petitioner’s favour: CA’s decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED.
105. Manuel v. People 2005 - Callejo, Sr.:
Facts:
1. in 1975, Eduardo married Rubylus Gaña
2. He met the private complainant Tina Gandalera in Dagupan City sometime in January 1996 (Tina was 21, Eduardo was 39) 3. Eduardo proposed marriage on several occasions, assuring her that he was single. Eduardo even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Tina’s parents, and was assured by them that their son was still single.
4. Tina finally agreed to marry Eduardo in April 1996 5. in January 2001, Eduardo left Tina and did not return.
6. Tina made inquiries from the National Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila where she learned that Eduardo had been previously married.
7. Eduardo in defense said that He informed Tina of his previous marriage to Rubylus Gaña, but she nevertheless agreed to marry him
8. Eduardo further testified that he declared he was “single” in his marriage contract with Tina because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid. He did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina.
9. Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned. He visited her in jail after three months and never saw her again. He insisted that he married Tina believing that his first marriage was no longer valid because he had not heard from Rubylus for more than 20 years.
10. Eduardo was charged of bigamy but alleged that he was not criminally liable for bigamy because when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and without any malicious intent.
Issue: Must there be a judicial declaration of death first before the rule on presumptive death would apply?
Held: Yes Ruling:
1. For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, it must be proved that: (a) he/she has been legally married; and (b) he/she contracts a subsequent (valid) marriage without the former marriage having been lawfully dissolved. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage.
2. Eduardo is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he married the private complainant.
3. He should have adduced in evidence a decision of a competent court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife. Such judicial declaration also constitutes proof that the petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part. But he failed to do this.
4. Thus, before the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage, he or she must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absentee spouse.
5. The Court rejects petitioner’s contention that the requirement of instituting a petition for declaration of presumptive death under
Article 41 of the Family Code is designed merely to enable the spouse present to contract a valid second marriage and not for the acquittal of one charged with bigamy.
106. Republic vs. Court of Appeals 9 Dec 2005 – J. Callejo Sr.
Facts:
1. On 20 Jan 1995, Alan Alegro married Rosalia (Lea) Julaton.
2. On 6 Feb 1995, he berated her for coming home late in the evening. The next day, Lea left without the knowledge of Alan and never returned.
3. On 14 Feb 1995, Alan went to his in-laws to see if Lea was there and was told that she wasn’t. He also went to Lea’s friend, Janeth, but was informed by the brother-in-law that Janeth had left for Manila. He went back to the in-laws and was told that Lea had been their but left without notice. He also sought the help of Barangay Captain Juan Magat.
4. On 27 Aug 1995, Alan left for Manila. He went to Janeth’s place but was told that she hasn’t seen his wife. He then worked as a part-time taxi driver and looked for his wife in the malls on his free time. He returned to Catbalogan thereafter.
5. On 29 Mar 2001, he filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of Lea.
6. On 16 Apr 2001, the court set a hearing on 30 May 2001 and ordered that a copy of the Order be made public. Alan complied with all the jurisdictional requirements. OSG filed a motion to dismiss but was denied.
7. At the hearing, Alan presented Barangay Captain Magat as the only witness. After resting his case, neither the Prosecutor nor the OSG opposed.
8. On 20 Jun 2001, Alan reported the disappearance to the local police station. The police issued an Alarm Notice on 4 Jul 2001. He also reported the same to the NBI on 9 Jul 2001.
9. On 8 Jan 2002, the court granted the petition. CA affirmed the decision citing the ruling in Republic vs. Nolasco.
Issue: Did Alan prove that he had a well-founded belief that Lea was already dead?
Held: No. The decision is reversed.
Ruling:
1. Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the present spouse is burdened to prove that his spouse has been absent and that he has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead before the present spouse may re-marry.
2. Belief is a state of mind or condition prompting the doing of an overt act. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.
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 and whether the absent spouse is alive or already dead.
3. Alan failed to present other witnesses than the Barangay Captain. Also, when he returned to the house of the in-laws, he was informed by his father-law that Lea had just been there but left without notice. He even failed to make inquiries from his in-laws regarding Lea’s whereabouts before filing the petition.
4. His act of reporting to the police and the NBI was a mere afterthought after the OSG’s motion to dismiss.
5. Alan failed to prove that he had a well-founded belief that Lea was already dead.
107. Repulic vs. Tango July 31, 2009 --- Quisumbing Facts:
1. Ferventino and Maria were married on March 9, 1987.
2. They had only been intimate once when Maria told Ferventino that she and her family would be leaving to the USA.
3. Maria assured Ferventino that she will file a petition so he can live with her in the USA, if that was denied, then she promised to go back to the PH and live with him
4. Maria kept in touch with Ferventino for a year by mail. After she stopped replying, he burned her letters out of resentment and claims to have forgotten her address.
5. Ferventino learned from her uncle that even her relatives were also unaware of her whereabouts.
6. He asked his friend Captain Luis Aris of the U.S. Air Force but even he was unsuccessful to locate her.
7. 14 years passed and there was still no news about Maria.
8. Thus, he filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of Maria under Article 41 of the Fam Code on October 1, 2001.
9. The Court of Appeals and the RTC ruled in favor of the Ferventino.
10. The Petitioner (Republic) had appealed in all 3 courts.
11. The Republic contests the CA's ruling that there was enough evidence to prove that she was in fact dead.
12. OSG discounts respondent's testimony, on the steps he looked to find Maria, as hearsay because none of the persons who helped in his search testified in court. Also, that it was only Capt. Aris who gave a detailed account of his efforts to track down Maria (checked the phone directory, inquired about her from the registrar's office in Seattle)
Issue: Has Ferventino established a well-founded belief that his absent spouse is already dead?
Held: Yes
Ruling:
1. Petitioner committed a serious procedural lapse when it filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals instead of a petition for certiorari. The RTC equally erred in giving due course to said appeal and ordering the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court.
2. The CA never had jurisdiction to review the judgment of the RTC, which by express provision of law, was immediately final and executory.
3. Petition is denied.
Concept:
Doctrine of Finality of Judgment- is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final on some definite date fixed by law. The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable.
108. Lim vs. CA
September 25, 1992 – Davide Facts:
1. Focus on the rule on confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship
2. A petition to annul the order of the trial court allowing a Psychiatrist of the National Mental Hospital to testify as an expert witness and not as an attending physician of the petitioner