05 Republic of the Phils. Vs. Ludyson C. Catubag
Whether the Private Respondent has complied with the requisites of a
G.R. NO. 210580; APRIL 18, 2018
PETITIONER/S: Republic of the Philippines
RESPONDENT/S: Ludyson Catubag
EMERGENCY RECIT: Private Respondent’s wife left the family home. After 6 years,
Respondent filed a petition to have his wife declared presumptively dead. The RTC
granted it, but the Petitioner challenged it, filing a Petition under Rule 65 with the
CA, The CA dismissed it, ruling that the recourse was improper as the Petitioner
should have filed a MR with the RTC before elevating the case to the CA. The SC ruled
that the recourse was proper, and that there was no well-founded belief that the wife
was dead due to the failure of Respondent to prove that he exerted diligent efforts
in searching for the absentee spouse.
DOCTRINE: In cases of summary proceedings, a decision of the trial court can be
elevated to the CA via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
FACTS:
 Private Respondent Ludyson and Shanaviv were cohabiting with each other
as husband and wife, and had 2 children together.
 Ludyson and Shanaviv eventually married in 2003. The marriage was
solemnized by a Municipal Judge in Rizal, Cagayan.
 Sometime in 2006, while Ludyson was working abroad, Shanaviv left their
house and never returned (Ludyson’s relatives took care of the children).
 Ludyson flew back home and proceeded to look for his wife. He inquired
with close friends and relatives and even travelled as far as Bicol, where he
wife was born and raised, but to no avail. He also searched various hospitals
and funeral parlors, also to no avail.
 Ludyson subsequently sought the help of Bombo Radyo to broadcast the
fact of his wife’s disappearance.
 In 2012, Ludyson filed a petition with the RTC to have his wife declared
presumptively dead.
 The RTC granted the petition.
 Petitioner, through the office of the SolGen, elevated the case to the CA via
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, contending that Ludyson failed to
establish a well-founded belief that his wife was already dead.
 The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that Petitioner should have filed a MR
with the RTC. The Petitioner filed a MR but the CA denied the same.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Petitioner’s resort to an appeal to the CA under Rule 65 is proper.
2.
petition for declaration of presumptive death under Art. 41 of the Family
Code.
HELD:
1
YES. The nature of the proceeding determines the appropriate remedy or remedies
available. Under Art. 41 of the Family Code, a petition for declaration of presumptive
death is a summary proceeding. Art 253 of the same Code likewise characterizes
proceedings under Art. 41 as summary proceedings.
As a consequence of this summary nature, parties cannot seek reconsideration, nor
appeal decision in summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code because
these judgments are immediately final and executory by express mandate of law.
However, parties may challenge the decision in such proceedings through a petition
for certiorari to question grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
As previously held by the Court in Republic vs. Sareňogon, Jr., in a summary
proceeding for the declaration for presumptive death, if a party is aggrieved by the
decision of the RTC, then a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 should be filed with
the CA. any subsequent decision by the CA may be elevated to the SC via Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
2
NO. There are 4 requisites under Art. 41 that must be complied with for the
declaration of presumptive death to prosper:
1. The absent spouse has been missing for 4 consecutive years, or 2 if such
spouse was in danger of death when the disappearance occurred;
2. The present spouse wants to remarry;
3. The present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead; and
4. The present spouse files for a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee.
In this case, Ludyson has complied with the 1st, 2nd, and 4th requisites, nut has not
satisfied the 3rd requisite as he has not established a well-founded belief that the
absentee is dead. Such belief must result from diligent efforts to locate the absent
spouse. Ludyson failed to establish his allegations. He did not present the friends and
family he claims to have made inquiries to. While he did have a certification from
Bombo Radyo’s manager, he did not seek help from government agencies like the
police or NBI. Ludyson’s assertion, uncorroborated by evidence, falls short of the
diligence required to engender a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 23,
2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan, Branch 11 and the Resolutions
dated September 3, 2013 and December 6, 2013 rendered by the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 131269 are hereby ANNULED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the
petition of private respondent Ludyson C. Catubag to have his wife, Shanaviv G.
Alvarez Catubag, declared presumptively dead is DENIED. SO ORDERED.