Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 is a Wrong Remedy Against a Courts Final and

Appealable Order (Cajipe vs People, 2014)

Facts:
Before the DOJ, Lilian filed a complaint charging multiple murder against certain police
officers from the PNP-HPG and PNP-SAF who were involved in the police action that led to the
shooting of her husband and their daughter. After preliminary investigation, the DOJ filed the
Information before the RTC indicting all the police officers charged in the complaint.
On the following day, the HPG group of accused police officers filed an omnibus motion for
judicial determination of probable cause with a prayer to hold in abeyance the issuance of
warrants for their arrest. The RTC issued warrants of arrest against the SAF officers but
dismissed the case against the HPG officers for lack of probable cause. Lilian moved for
reconsideration of the dismissal but it was denied.
For a period of 112 days after receipt of the order of dismissal by the public prosecutor, the
OSG via Rule 65 filed a petition for certiorari before the CA alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC. The CA granted the petition, ruling that the RTC gravely
abused its discretion and thus ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against the HPG
officers.
Issue 1: W/N the CA is correct in granting the OSGs petition for certiorari via Rule 65
No. Considering that the RTC order of dismissal is final and appealable, the CA erred when it
granted the special civil action for certiorari filed by the OSG via Rule 65.
The RTC judge was within his powers to dismiss the case against petitioner HPG officers.
Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the judge may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
cause. The CA should have denied the Peoples petition that assails the correctness of the
order of dismissal since Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that such action is available only when
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Section 1 of Rule 122 provides that an appeal may be taken in a criminal action from a
judgment or final order like the RTCs order dismissing the case against petitioner HPG
officers for lack of probable cause. It is a final order since it disposes of the case, terminates
the proceedings, and leaves the court with nothing further to do with respect to the case
against petitioner HPG officers. Of course, the People may refile the case if new evidence
adduced in another preliminary investigation will support the filing of a new information

against them. But that is another matter. For now, the CA clearly erred in not denying the
petition for being a wrong remedy.
Issue 2: Assuming the propriety of filing the special civil action for certiorari against the
RTCs order of dismissal, whether or not should the reckoning point of filing the action be
from the date the DOJ or the court give notice of the order of dismissal to the OSG (The OSG
based its contention on the well-established rule that only the OSG has the authority to
represent the People before the CA)
No. The contention of the OSG is not correct. There is no reason for the RTC to serve copy of
its judgments or final orders upon the OSG since the OSG does not enter its appearance in
criminal cases before the trial courts.
In case of permissible appeals from a final order in a criminal action, the public
prosecutor who appears as counsel for the People in such an action and on whom a copy of
the final order is thus served, may file a notice of appeal within the appropriate time since it
is a notice addressed to the RTC and not to the CA. Only the OSG, however, may pursue the
appeal before the CA by filing the required appellants brief or withdraw the same.
In special civil actions such as that taken by the OSG before the CA, the public prosecutors
duty, if he believes that a matter should be brought by special civil action before an
appellate court, is to promptly communicate the facts and his recommendation to the OSG,
advising it of the last day for filing such an action. There is no reason the OSG cannot file the
petition since the People is given 60 days from notice to the public prosecutor within which
to file such an action before the CA or the SC.
Since the OSG filed its petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on behalf of the People 112 days
from receipt of the dismissal order by the city prosecutor of Paraaque, the petition was filed
out of time. The order of dismissal is thus beyond appellate review. ##
Two Grounds on Which a Special Civil Action for Certiorari May Prosper:
1.

Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of

the body, court, tribunal or govt agency, and

2.

There is no other appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.

Use of Discovery Procedures is Directed to The Sound Discretion of Trial Courts (Dulay vs
Dulay, 2005)

Facts:
Rodrigo is a naturalized American citizen. He has a nephew Pheger who immigrated to
America and stayed with him. Because of love, trust and affection for his nephew, he opened
a trust account in the Bank of Boston and named Pheger as trustee thereof. He found out
later that Pheger emptied the account and duped him, so he filed a complaint for recovery of
his bank deposits with attachment and damages. The case was filed in the Philippines. He
also filed a petition for the issuance of letters rogatory in order to get the depositions of
several witnesses residing abroad.
The American court however brushed the Letters aside, so the deposition was taken instead
before a notary public in New York. When Rodrigo submitted the deposition to the court, the
other party objected to its admissibility and moved for the dismissal of the complaint. The
court however denied the motion. The other party filed a certiorari imputing grave abuse of
discretion on the trial court.
Issue: W/N the act of the court in allowing the deposition is proper
Yes. The use of discovery procedures is directed to the sound discretion of the trial courts,
which, in general, are given wide latitude in granting motions for discovery in order to
enable the parties to prepare for trial or otherwise to settle the controversy prior thereto.
While the letters rogatory issued by the trial court specifically directed the Clerk of Court of
Boston to take the depositions needed in the case, it became impossible to follow the
directive since the Clerk of Court of Boston merely brushed it aside and refused to
cooperate. Respondent cannot be faulted for the resultant delay brought about by this
circumstance. Neither can the trial court be faulted for allowing the admission of the
depositions taken not in strict adherence to its original directive, nor for directing the
petitioner to have the depositions authenticated. Obviously, it was not within the trial courts
power, much less the respondents to force the Clerk of Court of Boston to have the
deposition taken before it. It would be illogical and unreasonable to expect respondent to
comply with the letters rogatory without the cooperation of the very institution or
personality named in the letters rogatory and requested to examine the witnesses. After all,
while a court had the authority to entertain a discovery request, it is not required to provide
judicial assistance thereto. This reality was recognized by the trial court when it ordered
respondent to have the questioned depositions authenticated by the Philippine consulate.
Indeed, refusing the allowance of the depositions in issue would be going directly against the
purpose of taking the depositions in the first place, that is, the disclosure of facts which are
relevant to the proceedings in court. ##
Commissions and Letters Rogatory
In our jurisdiction, depositions in foreign countries may be taken: (a) on notice before a
secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of
the Republic of the Philippines; (b) before such person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters rogatory; or (c) before any person authorized to administer

oaths as stipulated in writing by the parties. While letters rogatory are requests to foreign
tribunals, commissions are directives to officials of the issuing jurisdiction.
Generally, a commission is an instrument issued by a court of justice, or other competent
tribunal, directed to a magistrate by his official designation or to an individual by name,
authorizing him to take the depositions of the witnesses named therein, while a letter
rogatory is a request to a foreign court to give its aid, backed by its power, to secure desired
information. Commissions are taken in accordance with the rules laid down by the court
issuing the commission, while in letters rogatory, the methods of procedure are under the
control of the foreign tribunal.
Leave of court is not required when the deposition is to be taken before a secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul or consular agent of the Republic of
the Philippines and the defendants answer has already been served. However, if the
deposition is to be taken in a foreign country where the Philippines has no secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul or consular agent, it may be taken
only before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters
rogatory.
Rule 23, Sec 11
Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in foreign countries. In a foreign
state or country, depositions may be taken (a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the
Philippines; (b) before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under
letters rogatory; or the person referred to in Section 14 hereof.
Rule 23, Sec 14
Section 14. Stipulations regarding taking of depositions. If the parties so stipulate in writing,
depositions may be taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, at any time or
place, in accordance with these Rules, and when so taken may be used like other
depositions.
Dismissal of Small Claims Cases for Lack of Cause of Action Are Necessarily With Prejudice
(Lourdes vs Binaro, 2014)
Facts:
Lourdes Suites filed before the MeTC a small-claims complaint against Binaro for
nonpayment of penalty charges on its rented rooms. Binaro responded with a counterclaim.

Lourdes Suites impugned the validity of Binaros pleading stating that it did not comply with
the form of an Answer as required in Rule 11, Sec 1 of the Rules of Court.
The MeTC, after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of
cause of action. Lourdes Suites filed a certiorari before the RTC arguing that lack of cause of
action is not a valid ground for dismissal of cases, much more a dismissal with prejudice. It
contends that a complaint even after the presentation of evidence cannot be dismissed on
ground of lack of cause of action because it is not expressly provided for under the Rules on
Small Claims Cases and the Rules of Civil Procedure, and that if there was a failure to prove
a cause of action the only available remedy would be a demurrer filed by the defendant.
The RTC ruled that there was no grave of abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC. The
MR was also denied. Hence, Lourdes Suites brought the issue to the SC via petition for
review under Rule 45.
Issue: W/N dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action is proper under the Rules of
Court
Yes. The courts are not precluded from dismissing a case for lack of cause of action such as
insufficiency of evidence. In civil cases, courts must determine if the plaintiff was able to
prove his case by a preponderance of evidence.
The basis of the MeTC in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action is the failure of
plaintiff to preponderantly establish its claim by clear and convincing evidence. Hence, MeTC
did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause
of action, as it referred to the evidence presented and not to the allegations in the
Complaint.
The dismissal of the complaint with prejudice is likewise not an exercise of wanton or
palpable discretion. This case is an action for small claims where decisions are rendered final
and unappealable; hence, a decision dismissing it is necessarily with prejudice. ##
Notes
Failure to State a Cause of Action vs Lack of Cause of Action (Macaslang vs Zamora, 2011)
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each
other. On the one hand, failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the
pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other
hand, lack of cause of action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the

cause of action alleged in the pleading. Justice Regalado, a recognized commentator on

remedial law, has explained the distinction:
What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state a cause of action which is provided in
Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of Rule 10, which
was also included as the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers to the situation
where the evidence does not prove a cause of action. This is, therefore, a matter of
insufficiency of evidence.
The remedy in the failure to state a cause of action is to move for dismissal of the pleading,
while the remedy in the lack of cause of action is to demur to the evidence, hence reference
to Sec. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this section. The procedure would consequently
be to require the pleading to state a cause of action, by timely objection to its deficiency;
or, at the trial, to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is warranted.
Habeas Corpus is the Only Means of Giving Retroactive Effect to a Decision Favorable to the
Accused (Gumabon vs Dir, 1971)
Facts:
Gumabon, Bagolbagol, Agapito, Padua and Palmares were convicted of the complex crime of
rebellion with multiple murder, robbery, arson, and kidnapping. While serving their
sentences of reclusion perpetua, the SC promulgated People vs Hernandezin 1956, ruling
that there could be no complex crime of rebellion with murder, etc, as it is not warranted
under Article 134 of the RPC. Thus, Gumabon et. al invoked the Hernandez ruling via a
petition for habeas corpus. They prayed that they be released from incarcerations based on
equal protection of law and on the doctrine that judicial decisions favoring the accused must
apply retroactively.
Issue: W/N a petition for habeas corpus is the available remedy in this case
Yes. A petition for habeas corpus is the only means of benefiting the accused by the
retroactive character of a favorable decision.
Citing an American case, the Court said that the writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental
instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.
The scope and flexibility of the writ, its capacity to reach all manner of illegal detention, its
ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes have always been
emphasized and jealously guarded by courts and lawmakers. The very nature of the writ

demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that
miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected. ##
Habeas Corpus is the Remedy for a Person Deprived of Liberty Due to Mistaken Identity
(Sabilo vs Warden, 2015)
Facts:
Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao massacre, had a pending
warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in People vs Ampatuan Jr. et. al. When Datukan
Malang Salibo learned that the police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao
suspected him to be Butukan S. Malang, he presented himself to clear his name. Salibo
presented to the police pertinent portions of his passport, boarding passes and other
documents tending to prove that a certain Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia when
the massacre happened. The authorities, however, apprehended and detained him. He
questioned the legality of his detention via Urgent Petition for Habeas Corpus before the CA,
maintaining that he is not the accused Batukan S. Malang. The CA issued the writ, making it
returnable to the judge of RTC Taguig. After hearing of the Return, the trial court granted
Salibos petition and ordered his immediate release from detention.
On appeal by the Warden, the CA reversed the RTC ruling. The CA held that even assuming
Salibo was not the Batukan S. Malang named in the Alias Warrant of Arrest, orderly course of
trial must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before the writ of habeas corpus
may be invoked. Salibos proper remedy, according to the CA, should have been a motion to
quash information and/or warrant of arrest.
On the other hand, Salibo believes that the Warden erred in appealing the RTC decision
before the CA. Salibo argued that although the CA delegated to the RTC the authority to hear
the Wardens Return, the RTCs ruling should be deemed as the CA ruling, and hence, it
should have been appealed directly before the SC.
Issue 1: W/N Salibo properly availed the remedy of a petition for writ of habeas corpus
Yes. Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity.
In such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally
detained.
First, it was Butukan S. Malang, not Salibo, who was charged and accused in the Information
and Alias Warrant of Arrest issued in the case of People vs Ampatuan. Based on the
evidences presented, Salibo sufficiently established that he could not have been Butukan S.

Malang. Therefore, Salibo was not arrested by virtue of any warrant charging him of an
offense, nor restrained under a lawful process or an order of a court. Second, Salibo was not
validly arrested without a warrant. When he was in the presence of authorities, he was
neither committing nor attempting to commit an offense, and the police officers had no
personal knowledge of any offense that he might have committed. Salibo was also not an
escape prisoner.
The police officers have deprived him of his liberty without due process of law. Therefore,
Salibo correctly
Issue 2: W/N a motion to quash information and/or warrant of arrest is the proper remedy in
cases where a person with amistaken identity is detained
No, the CAs contention is not correct. Salibos proper remedy is not a Motion to Quash
Information and/or Warrant of Arrest. None of the grounds for filing a Motion to Quash
Information apply to him. Even if petitioner Salibo filed a Motion to Quash, the defect he
alleged could not have been cured by mere amendment of the Information and/or Warrant of
Arrest. Changing the name of the accused appearing in the Information and/or Warrant of
Arrest from Butukan S. Malang to Datukan Malang Salibo will not cure the lack of
preliminary investigation in this case. Likewise, a motion for reinvestigation will not cure the
defect of lack of preliminary investigation.

Issue 3: W/N the Warden correctly appealed the RTC ruling on the Return before the CA
Yes. An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made through a petition filed before
CA or any of its members, the CA or any of its members in instances authorized by law, or
the RTC or any of its presiding judges. The court or judge grants the writ and requires the
officer or person having custody of the person allegedly restrained of liberty to file a return
of the writ. A hearing on the return of the writ is then conducted.
The return of the writ may be heard by a court apart from that which issued the writ. Should
the court issuing the writ designate a lower court to which the writ is made returnable, the
lower court shall proceed to decide the petition of habeas corpus. By virtue of the
designation, the lower court acquires the power and authority to determine the merits of the
petition for habeas corpus. Therefore, the decision on the petition is a decision appealable to
the court that has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the lower court.

Lower Courts Must Observe Judicial Courtesy When Issue is Pending Resolution By A Higher
Court (Nicart vs Titong, 2014)
Facts:
Titong and Abrugar, together with 93 others, were appointed as department heads by the
then Governor Evardone of Samar a few days before the end of his term.Their appointments
were disapproved by the CSC Regional Office for violation of CSC rules and for not having
met the requirements laid down in Nazareno vs City of Dumaguete case. Titong and Abrugar
filed a petition for review before the CSC Main, which granted and declared their
appointments as valid. The new Governor Nicart sought for reconsideration, but it was
denied. Before the CA, he appealed arguing that their appointments cannot be valid since
there was no need to fill up the positions and that their appointments were en masse.
Meanwhile, the CSC Main issued a writ of execution ordering Gov Nicart and the provincial
government to pay the salaries and emoluments of Titong and Abrugar. Gov Nicart refused,
so they filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC even while the case before the CA was
still pending.
The RTC decided the petition on the basis of the CSC memo circular 82 which states that the
non-issuance of a restraining order or injunction would make the CSC resolution executory
pending appeal. Since there was no TRO or injunction, and its opinion that the CA decision
would not constitute res judicata or in any way affect the petition for mandamus, the RTC
issued a writ of mandamus and went even further in deciding that the appointments were
valid.
Issue: W/N it is proper for the RTC to take cognizance of the petition for mandamus even
while the issues involved is still pending resolution before the CA
Held:
No. First, it is erroneous for the RTC to opine that the CA decision would not affect the
petition before it because clearly, the mandamus petition heavily relies on the validity or
invalidity of the appointments which issue is yet to be resolved by the CA. Second, even
while there is no preliminary injunction or TRO issued by the higher court, ordinarily it would
be proper for a lower court or a court of origin to suspend the proceedings on the precept
of judicial courtesy. Hence, the RTC erred when it decided on the mandamus petition for
disregarding such principle. ##

Circumstantial Evidence Must Show Culpability Belongs Only to the Accused to the Exclusion
of Others (Zabala vs People, 2015)
Facts:
Alas accused Zabala of theft. During the trial, Alas testified that he and Zabala were not only
neighbors, but kumpares as well, and would often invite the latter to drinking sessions inside
his house. At times, he would also call Zabala to repair his vehicle and allow Zabala to follow
him to his bedroom to get cash whenever spare parts are to be bought for the repair of his
vehicle. One day when he returned from work, he found that his P68k which he kept in an
envelope inside his closet was missing. There were only five persons living in the house that
time, he together with his parents, his 9-year old son, and his aunt.
Witness Pinon also testified that, being Zabalas girlfriend, she were with him at the store
which was near Alas house at that time. She saw Zabala climb the fence, scale and enter
Alas house, and noticed that when he returned, he had a bulge in his pocket. Day after that,
they went to Greenhills, where Zabala bought two Nokia phones worth about P8,500.
Issue 1: W/N the corpus delicti of the crime was established in this case
No. In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the
owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
First, nobody saw Zabala entered the room of Alas where the money was hidden. Pinon
merely saw that Zabala scaled the fence of Alas house and entered it. Second, all that Pinon
saw was the bulge in Zabalas pocket; her testimony does not show that the bulge was the
P68k which was supposedly stolen. These testimonies failed to prove the fact that the P68k
was lost and that Zabala unlawfully took it. Hence, the evidence presented was not sufficient
to prove the fact of the crime of theft.
Issue 2: W/N the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to prove Zabalas guilt
beyond reasonable doubt
No. The rule in circumstantial evidence cases is that the evidence must exclude the
possibility that some other person committed the crime.
In this case, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that at the time the theft was
committed, there was no other person inside the house of Alas, or that no other person
could have taken the money from the closet of Alas. They failed to prove that culpability
could only belong to Zabala, and not to some other person. Hence, Zabala must be
acquitted in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. ##

Relevant Laws
Rules of Court
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if: (1)There is more than one circumstance; (2)The facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; (3)The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lozano vs People, 2010
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a
fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the
guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other
person has committed the crime.
A Complaint With No Cause of Action at the Time of Filing Is Dismissible Even If One Accrues
After (Swagman vs CA, 2005)
Facts:
Swagman Hotel, Inc., through its representatives, obtained from Neal a loan which is
payable after 3 years and with interest per annum payable every 3 months. After a year,
Swagman suffered business reverses prompting it to renegotiate the terms of the loan with
Neal. It was agreed that Neal waives the payment of interests and that the principal loan
shall be paid every month instead of quarterly. After the renegotiation, the cash vouchers or
receipts acknowledged by the parties state that the payments therein represent Capital
Investment and Capital Repayment.
Barely 2 years after however, Neal sent a letter informing the corporation that he is
terminating the loans and demanding that the total amount of the loan and unpaid interests
be paid. Subsequently, Neal filed a complaint for sum of money and damages. Swagman
answered that the complaint is dismissible for lack of cause of action since the loan is not
yet due and demandable and that there was novation in the contract. But the RTC held in
favor of Neal, rationating that although there was no cause of action at the filing of the
complaint, the debt has already matured during the days the hearings were held, thus
making it due as of date.

Issue 1: W/N a complaint that lacks a cause of action at the time it was filed be cured by
the accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the case
No. Jurisprudence states that unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action
at the time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the
acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an
amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible. (Surigao Mines
vs Harris, 1935)
Issue 2: W/N there was novation in the terms of the promissory notes
Yes. Under Article 1253 of the Civil Code, it is presumed that if the debt produces interest,
payments were applied first to the interest before the principal. But in this case, the
receipts describing the payments as capital repayment show that obligation to pay the
interest was no longer subsisting. The receipts prove that the payments were for the
principal loans and that the interests were waived by Neal. There was therefore a novation
of the terms of the loan.
The resulting novation in this case was of the modificatory type, not the extinctive type,
since the obligation to pay a sum of money remains in force. Thus, since Swagman did not
renege on its obligation to pay the monthly installments conformably with their new
agreement and even continued paying during the pendency of the case, Neal had no cause
of action to file the complaint. It is only upon debtors default in the payment of the monthly
amortizations that a cause of action would arise and give the creditor a right to maintain an
action against the petitioner. ##
Section 5, Rules of Civil Procedure:
Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. When issues not
raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they
shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment
of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise
these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected
to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court
may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of
the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The
court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
Art 1253, Civil Code:

If the debt produces interest, payment of the principal shall not be deemed to have been
made until the interest has been covered.
RTC Decision on Summary Proceeding for Declaration of Presumptive Death Reviewable Only
via Rule 65 (Rep vs Sarenogon, 2016)
Facts:
Sarenogon filed a petition before the RTC to declare the presumptive death of his wife
Netchie. He testified that they got married and lived together as husband and wife for a
month only because he left to work as a seaman while Netchie went to Hongkong as a
domestic helper. For 3 months, he did not receive any communication from Netchie and had
no idea about her whereabouts. While still abroad, he tried to contact Netchies parents, but
failed. He returned home after his contract expired, then inquired from Netchies
relatives and friends about her whereabouts. They also did not know where she was.
Because of these, he had to presume that his wife Netchie was already dead. He filed the
Petition before the RTC so he could contract another marriage pursuant to Article 41 of the
Family Code. Joses testimony was corroborated by his older brother, and by Netchies
aunt.

These two witnesses testified that Jose and Netchie lived together as husband and

wife only for one month prior to their leaving the Philippines for separate destinations
abroad and added that they had no information regarding Netchies location. The RTC found
that Netchie had disappeared for more than four years, reason enough for Jose to conclude
that his wife was indeed already dead.
The OSG questioned the RTC ruling via Rule 65 before the CA for the RTCs error in its
misappreciation of evidence. The CA saw no error in the RTC judgment and further held that
Rule 65 is the wrong recourse in elevating a declaration of presumptive death judgment
from the RTC.
Issue 1: W/N Rule 65 is the proper recourse to question the RTC ruling
Held:
Yes. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the RTCs
decision in a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death.
Under Article 247 of the Family Code, the RTCs decision on a petition pursuant to Article 41
of the Family Code is immediately final and executory. Thus, the CA has no jurisdiction to
entertain a notice of appeal pertaining to such judgment. However, an aggrieved party
may file a certiorari under Rule 65 to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in the CA in accordance with the Doctrine of

Hierarchy of Courts. From the decision of the CA, the aggrieved party may elevate the
matter to SC via a petition for review under Rule 45.
Issue 2: W/N the well-founded belief requisite under Article 41 (FC) was complied
with (CIVIL LAW)
Held:
No. To comply with this requirement, the present spouse must prove that his/her belief
was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse
and that based on these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that under the circumstances,
the absent spouse is already dead. It requires exertion of active effort. In this case,
Sarenogon failed to satisfy required well-founded belief standard.
Sarenogons pathetically anemic efforts to locate the missing Netchie are notches below the
required degree of stringent diligence prescribed by jurisprudence. For, aside from his bare
claims that he had inquired from alleged friends and relatives as to Netchies 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. Neither did he
prove that he sought the assistance of the pertinent government agencies as well as the
media. Nor did he show that he undertook a thorough, determined and unflagging search
for Netchie, say for at least two years (and what those years were), and naming the
particular places, provinces, cities, barangays or municipalities that he visited, or went to,
and identifying the specific persons he interviewed or talked to in the course of his search.
##
RTC Designated as a Special Commercial Court is Still a Court of General Jurisdiction
(Concorder vs Baculio, 2016)
Facts:
Petitioners filed with the RTC Makati a petition for injunction (with damages with prayer for
issuance of a TRO, writ of preliminary injunction, and writ of mandatory preliminary
injunction) against the respondents seeking to enjoin them from misrepresenting to the
public that they are the owners of the Concorde condominium building, and to prevent other
certain individuals and government officials from doing particular acts. The case was
docketed as a civil case and raffled to a Makati RTC branch which was designated as a
special commercial court. The respondents moved to dismiss claiming that the said RTC
branch, as a special commercial court, has no jurisdiction over the case because it is merely
an ordinary civil action and not those cases such as intracorporate disputes over which

special commercial courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Accordingly, the RTC dismissed the
case.
Issue: W/N the RTC branch erred in dismissing the case
Held:
Yes. The designation of the said branch as a Special Commercial Court by no means
diminished its power as a court of general jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of all nature,
whether civil, criminal or special proceedings. The matter of whether the RTC resolves an
issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court
is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
The petition for injunction with damages is clearly an ordinary civil case. As a court of
general jurisdiction, the RTC branch still has jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof. ##