Tadeo-Matias vs. Republic, GR. No. 230751, April 25, 2018

Doctrine: A reading of Article 41 of the Family Code shows that the presumption of death established therein is only applicable for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage under the said law.

Case Title: Estrellita Tadeo-Matias vs. Republic GR. No. 230751; April 25, 2018, J. Velasco Jr.

Facts

On April 10, 2012, petitioner Estrellita Tadco-Matias filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her husband, Wilfredo N. Matias.

She alleged that Wilfredo continued to serve the Philippines and on September 15, 1979, he set out from their conjugal home to again serve as a member of the Philippine Constabulary and that it never came back from his tour of duty in Arayat, Pampanga since 1979 and he never made contact or communicated with the petitioner nor to his relatives; according to the service record of Wilfredo issued by the National Police Commission, Wilfredo was already declared missing since 1979. Petitioner constantly pestered the then Philippine Constabulary for any news regarding her beloved husband Wilfredo, but the Philippine Constabulary had no answer to his whereabouts, neither did they have any news of him going AWOL, all they know was he was assigned to a place frequented by the New People's Army.

She further alleged that Weeks became years and years became decades, but the petitioner never gave up hope, and after more than three (3) decades of awaiting, the petitioner is still hopeful, but the times had been tough on her, especially with a meager source of income coupled with her age, it is now necessary for her to request for the benefits that rightfully belong to her in order to survive. According to her, the reason why she filed the petition is to claim for the benefits under P.D. 1638 which requires is for a proof of death or at least declaration of presumptive death by the Honorable Court.

The RTC issued a Decision in Spec. Proc. No. 4850 granting the petition. On the other hand, the Republic questioned the decision of the RTC via a petition for certiorari. On November 28, 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision granting the certiorari petition of the Republic and setting aside the decision of the RTC. According to CA, the RTC erred when it declared Wilfredo presumptively dead based on Article 41 of the Family Code (FC). Article 41 of the FC does not apply to the instant petition as it was clear that petitioner does not seek to remarry.

In further held that be that as it may, the petition to declare Wilfredo presumptively dead should have been dismissed by the RTC. The RTC is without authority to take cognizance of a petition whose sole purpose is to have a person declared presumptively dead under either Article 390 or Article 391 of the Civil Code. As been held by jurisprudence, Articles 390 and 391 of theCivil Code merely express rules of evidence that allow a court or a tribunal to presume that a person is dead — which presumption may be invoked in any action or proceeding, but itself cannot be the subject of an independent action or proceeding. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA remained steadfast. Hence, this appeal.

Issue

Whether Petitioner can validly be granted the judicial declaration of presumptive death.

Held

No. Petitioner erred in filing for judicial declaration of presumptive death which is not a viable suit. The petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by the petitioner is not an authorized suit and should have been dismissed by the RTC. The RTC's decision must, therefore, be set aside. Here, petitioner was forthright that she was not seeking the declaration of the presumptive death Wilfredo as a prerequisite for remarriage. In her petition for the declaration of presumptive death, petitioner categorically stated that the same was filed "not for any other purpose but solely to claim for the benefit under P.D. No. 1638 as amended.

Since the petition filed by the petitioner merely seeks the declaration of presumptive death of Wilfredo under the Civil Code, the RTC should have dismissed such petition outright. This is because, in our jurisdiction, a petition whose sole objective is to have a person declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code is not regarded as a valid suit and no court has any authority to take cognizance of the same.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Court deems it necessary to issue the following guidelines-culled from relevant law and jurisprudential pronouncements-to aid the public, PVAO and the AFP in making or dealing with claims of death benefits which are similar to that of the petitioner:

1. The PVAO and the AFP can decide claims of death benefits of a missing soldier without requiring the claimant to first produce a court declaration of the presumptive death of such soldier. In such claims, the PVAO and the AFP can make their own determination, based on the evidence presented by the claimant, whether the presumption of death under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code may be applied or not.

It must be stressed that the presumption of death under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code arises by operation of law, without need of a court declaration, once the factual conditions mentioned in the said articles are established. Hence, requiring the claimant to further secure a court declaration to establish the presumptive death of a missing soldier is not proper and contravenes established jurisprudence on the matter.

2. In order to avail of the presumption, therefore, the claimant need only present before the PVAO or the appropriate office of the AFP, as the case may be, any "evidence"21 which shows that the concerned soldier had been missing for such number of years and or under the circumstances prescribed under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code. Obviously, the "evidence" referred to excludes a court declaration of presumptive death.

3. The PVAO or the AFP, as the case may be, may then weigh the evidence submitted by the claimant and determine their sufficiency to establish the requisite factual conditions specified under Article 390 or 391 of the Civil Code in order for the presumption of death to arise. If the PVAO or the AFP determines that the evidence submitted by the claimant is sufficient, they should not hesitate to apply the presumption of death and pay the latter's claim.

4. If the PVAO or the AFP determines that the evidence submitted by the claimant is not sufficient to invoke the presumption of death under the Civil Code and denies the latter's claim by reason thereof, the claimant may file an appeal with the Office of the President (OP) pursuant to the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

If the OP denies the appeal, the claimant may next seek recourse via a petition for review with the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of the Court. And finally, should such recourse still fail, the claimant may file an appeal by certiorari with the Supreme Court.