View full case

REPUBLIC v. LUDYSON C. CATUBAG

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner, Emmanuel Kabigting, challenging the resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declaring his missing wife, Shanaviv Kabigting, presumptively dead. Prior to their marriage in 2003, Emmanuel and Shanaviv had been cohabiting as husband and wife and had two children together. In 2001, Emmanuel went overseas for work while Shanaviv stayed in the Philippines to take care of their children. They got married in 2003, and Emmanuel continued to work abroad, maintaining constant communication with his family.

In 2006, Emmanuel was informed by his relatives that Shanaviv had left their house and never returned. He took an emergency vacation to search for his wife in various places but failed to locate her. Emmanuel sought the help of Bombo Radyo Philippines to broadcast his wife's disappearance and searched hospitals and funeral parlors but was unable to find her.

After almost seven years, Emmanuel filed a petition to have Shanaviv declared presumptively dead, which the RTC granted. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic of the Philippines, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC. The OSG filed a notice of appeal, but the RTC dismissed it, citing that judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code are immediately final and executory.

The OSG questioned the RTC's decision through a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed the petition, stating that the proper remedy is a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court (SC). The OSG then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC, arguing that the RTC erred in declaring Shanaviv presumptively dead without sufficient evidence.

The SC determined that the petition for certiorari before the CA was the proper mode of challenging the RTC's decision. It discussed the essential requisites for a petition for the declaration of presumptive death, emphasizing that the burden of proving these requisites rests on the present spouse seeking the declaration. The SC found that Emmanuel needed to present further evidence to support his assertion that Shanaviv is presumptively dead. Thus, the case was remanded to the RTC for the presentation of additional evidence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioner complied with the essential requisites for a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner successfully established a well-founded belief that his wife is dead.

  3. Whether the present spouse conducted a reasonable, diligent, and active search to locate the absent spouse.

  4. Whether the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.

  5. Whether or not private respondent was able to establish a well-founded belief that his wife, Shanaviv, is already dead.

  6. Whether or not an alleged missing spouse can be declared presumptively dead under Article 41 of the Family Code.

RULING:

  1. The petitioner has sufficiently complied with the first, second, and fourth requisites for a petition for declaration of presumptive death. The issue to be resolved is whether he successfully established a well-founded belief that his wife is dead.

  2. To establish a well-founded belief that an absent spouse is already dead, diligent efforts to locate the missing spouse must be shown. Mere absence of the spouse or lack of any news that the absentee spouse is still alive is not enough. The petitioner must exert active efforts, such as making inquiries and attempts to locate the absent spouse. In this case, the petitioner failed to present witnesses, such as the absent spouse's relatives, neighbors, and friends, who can corroborate his efforts. Thus, he did not successfully establish a well-founded belief that his wife is dead.

  3. The present spouse's efforts in searching for the absent spouse were found to be insufficient to comply with the requirement of conducting a reasonable, diligent, and active search.

  4. The present spouse failed to prove that she had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. Her efforts in searching for the absent spouse were deemed insincere and lacking in corroborative evidence.

  5. The Court held that private respondent failed to fulfill the requisite of establishing a well-founded belief that his wife, Shanaviv, is already dead. Thus, the petition for declaration of presumptive death should be denied. The Court emphasized the need for courts to exercise prudence in evaluating petitions for declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse, as a lenient approach in applying the standards of diligence required in establishing a "well-founded belief" would defeat the State's policy in protecting and strengthening the institution of marriage. Therefore, the petition was granted and the decision of the Regional Trial Court and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals were annulled and set aside.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code, the present spouse has the burden of proving that all the requisites are present.

  • The term "well-founded belief" has no exact definition under the law and must be judged on a case-to-case basis.

  • To establish a well-founded belief, the present spouse must show diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse.

  • Mere absence of the spouse or lack of communication is not enough to establish a well-founded belief.

  • The present spouse should report the absence to the police or seek the aid of the authorities.

  • The present spouse should present witnesses who can corroborate their efforts to locate the absent spouse.

  • Mere allegations are not evidence and are not equivalent to proof.

  • The present spouse has the burden of proving a well-founded belief in the death of the absent spouse.

  • The present spouse's efforts in searching for the absent spouse must be reasonable, diligent, and active.

  • Inquiries and search efforts should be corroborated by evidence and witnesses.

  • Seeking the help of authorities, such as local police authorities and the National Bureau of Investigation, is prudent in cases of searching for a missing spouse.

  • Mere passive efforts, such as broadcasting the disappearance through a radio station, are not sufficient to establish a well-founded belief in the death of the absent spouse.

  • Spouses may not easily circumvent the policy of the laws on marriage by simply agreeing that one of them leave the conjugal abode and never return again.

  • Courts should exercise prudence in evaluating petitions for declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse to prevent the easy circumvention and undermining of the Family Code.

  • A lenient approach in applying the standards of diligence required in establishing a "well-founded belief" would defeat the State's policy in protecting and strengthening the institution of marriage.