ARTICLES 45-47 – Voidable Marriage
a. Villanueva v. CA
FACTS: Orlando Villanueva married Lilia Canalita- Villanueva,
after 4 years of marriage Orlando filed before the trial court a
petition for annulment of his marriage (on the ground that he
did not freely consent to be married to Lilia). He claimed that
threats of violence and duress forced him to marry Lilia who
was then pregnant.
On the other hand Lilia denied Orlando’s allegations
and she said that Orlando freely cohabited with her after the
marriage and she showed 14 letters that shows Orlando’s
affection and care towards her.
ISSUE: Whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the
ground of vitiated consent under Article 45 of the Family
Code; and
ANSWER: No. The court ruled that vitiation of consent is not
attendant in this case.Therefore, the petition for annulment,
which is anchored to his allegation that he did not freely give
his consent, should be dismissed.
REASONING: The SC ruled that Orlando’s allegation of fraud
and intimidation is untenable. On its face, it is obvious that
Orlando is only seeking to annul his marriage with Lilia so as
to have the pending appealed bigamy case [filed against him
by Lilia] to be dismissed.
b. Almelor v. RTC
Facts: Petitioner Manuel Almelor married respondent
Leonida Trinidad. After eleven (11) years of marriage, Leonida
filed a petition with the RTC to annul their marriage on the
ground that Manuel was psychologically incapacitated to
perform his marital obligations. Leonida described Manuel as
a harsh disciplinarian, unreasonably meticulous, easily
angered. She also alleged that her husband has concealed
from her his homosexuality. She caught him in an indiscreet
telephone conversation manifesting his affection for a male
caller. She also found several pornographic homosexual
materials in his possession. And she saw Manuel kissed
another man on the lips.
A clinical psychologist was presented to prove
Leonida’s claim. She testified that she conducted evaluative
interviews and a battery of psychiatric tests on Leonida. She
also had a one-time interview with Manuel and face-to-face.
She concluded that Manuel is psychologically incapacitated
and such incapacity is marked by antecedence; it existed even
before the marriage and appeared to be incurable. Manuel
countered that the true cause of Leonida’s hostility against
him was their professional rivalry. The trial court nullified the
marriage, not on the ground of Article 36, but Article 45 of
the Family Code. CA denied the appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between the two can be
declared as null and void due to fraud by reason of Manuel’s
concealment of his homosexuality.
HELD: Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to
annul a marriage, not homosexuality per se. Evidently, no
sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations
that Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed this to
Leonida at the time of their marriage. The lower court
considered the public perception of Manuel’s sexual
preference without the corroboration of witnesses. Also, it
took cognizance of Manuel’s peculiarities and interpreted it
against his sexuality. Even granting that Manuel is indeed a
homosexual, there was nothing in the complaint or anywhere
in the case was it alleged and proven that Manuel hid such
sexuality from Leonida and that Leonida’s consent had been
vitiated by such.
ARTICLES 55-67- Legal separation
a. Siochi v. Gozon
Facts: Elvira Gozon filed with the RTC Cavite a petition for
legal separation against her husband Alfredo Gozon.
Then, while the pending case of Legal Separation of
both parties, Alfredo and Mario entered into Agreement of
Buy and Sell involving their conjugal property for the price of
18 million pesos.
When the Court granted the legal separation of
Elvira and Mario, their property was dissolved and liquidated.
Being the offending spouse, Alfredo is deprived of his share in
the net profits and the same is awarded to their child
Winifred R. Gozon whose custody is awarded to Elvira.
Because of that Mario, filed a complaint with RTC
Malabon for specific performance and damages, annulment
of donation and sale, with preliminary mandatory and
prohibitory injunction and/or temporary restraining order.
The Court held, the agreement between Alfredo and
IDRI is null and void for their attempt of commission or
continuance of their wrongful acts, further alienating or
disposing of the subject property. Also the agreement of
Alfredo and Mario is null and void, for the absence of written
consent of Elvira Gozon for her property rights to the
undivided one-half share in the conjugal property of this case.
Held: No. The absence of the consent of one of the spouse
renders the entire sale void, including the portion of the
conjugal property pertaining to the spouse who contracted
the sale. Even if the other spouse actively participated in
negotiating for the sale of the property, that other spouse’s
written consent to the sale is still required by law for its
validity. And the offending spouse in an action for legal
separation is deprived of his share in the net profits of the
conjugal properties.
Under Article 63 (2) of the Family Code, the absolute
community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and
liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any
share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or
the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in
accordance with the provisions of article.
b. Quiao v. Quiao
Facts:
Petitioner Brigido Quiao was married to respondent
Rita Quiao and got four children. They had no separate
properties prior to their marriage.
Rita filed a complaint against Brigido for legal
separation for cohabiting with another woman.
Subsequently, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the legal
separation of the parties pursuant to Article 55, thereby
awarding the custody of their three minor children in favor of
Rita, who is the innocent spouse.
The properties accrued by the spouses shall be
divided equally between them subject to the respective
legitimes of their children; however, Brigido’s share of the net
profits earned by the conjugal partnership shall be forfeited
in favor of their children.
After more than nine months, Brigido filed a motion
for clarification asking the RTC to define “Nets Profits
Earned.” In answer, the court held that the phrase denotes
“the remainder of the properties of the parties after
deducting the separate properties of each of the spouses and
debts.”
Upon a motion for reconsideration, it initially set
aside its previous decision stating that net profit earned shall
be computed in accordance with par. 4 of Article 102 of the
Family Code. However, it later reverted to its original Order,
setting aside the last ruling.
Issue:
Whether or not the offending spouse acquired vested rights
over ½ of the properties in the conjugal partnership.
Held: In the case at bar, since it was already established by
the trial court that the offending spouses have no separate
properties, there is nothing to return to any of them.
The listed properties are considered part of the
conjugal partnership. Thus, ordinarily, what remains in the
listed properties should be divided equally between the
spouses and/or their respective heirs. However, since the trial
court found the petitioner the guilty party, his share from the
net profits of the conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of
the common children, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Family
Code.
So, as not to be confused, like in the absolute
community regime, nothing will be returned to the guilty
party in the conjugal partnership regime, because there is no
separate property which may be accounted for in the guilty
party’s favor.
ARTICLE 41 (Presumptive death of absent spouse under FC)
aa. Republic v. Nolasco
FACTS: Gregorio Nolasco is a seaman. He met Janet Parker, a
British, in bar in England. After that, Janet started living with
Nolasco in his ship for six months. It lasted until the contract
of Nolasco expired then he brought her to his hometown in
Antique. They got married in January 1982. Due to another
contract, Nolasco left the province. In 1983, Nolasco received
a letter from his mother informing him that his son had been
born but 15 days after, Janet left. Nolasco went home and cut
short his contract to find Janet’s whereabouts. He did so by
securing another seaman’s contract going to London. He
wrote several letters to the bar where they first met but it
was all returned. Gregorio petitioned in 1988 for a
declaration of presumptive death of Janet.
ISSUE:Whether or not Nolasco had a well-founded belief that
his wife, Janet, is already dead?
RULING: There are 4 requisites for the declaration of
presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code:
1. That the absent spouse has been missing for four
consecutive years, or two consecutive years if the
disappearance occurred where there is danger of death
under the circumstances laid down in Article 391, Civil Code;
2. That the present spouse wishes to remarry;
3. That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the
absentee is dead;
4. That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for
the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee;
The Supreme Court ruled that Nolasco’s efforts to
locate Janet were not persistent to show that he has a well-
founded belief that his wife was already dead because
instead of seeking assistance of local authorities and the
British Embassy, he even secured another contract. More so,
while he was in London, he did not even try to solicit help of
the authorities to find his wife.
bb. Calisterio v. Calisterio (supra)
FACTS: Teodorico Calistero died intestate, leaving several
parcels of land. He was survived by his wife, Marietta.
Teodorico was the second husband of Marietta who
was previously married to William Bounds in January 1946.
The latter disappeared without a trace in February 1947. 11
years later from the disappearance of Bounds, Marietta
and Teodorico got married without Marietta securing a court
declaration of Bounds’ presumptive death.
Antonia Armas, surviving sister of Teodorico filed a
petition claiming to be the sole surviving heir of the latter and
that the marriage between Marietta and her brother, being
allegedly bigamous is by itself null and void. She prayed that
her son be appointed as administrator of the estate of the
decedent and inheritance be adjudicated to her.
ISSUE: WON Marietta and Teodorico’s marriage was void due
to the absence of the declaration of presumptive death
RULING: No. The marriage between the respondent and
decedent was solemnized in 1958 where the law in force at
the time was the Civil Code and not the Family
Code. Article 256 of the Family Code limits its
retroactive effect only to cases where it would not prejudice
or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the
Civil Code and other laws. Since the Civil Code provides that
declaration of presumptive death is not essential before
contracting marriage where at least 7 consecutive years of
absence of the spouse is enough to remarry, then Marietta’s
marriage with Teodorico is valid and therefore she has a right
to claim a portion of Teodorico’s estate.
cc. Manuel v. People
dd. Republic v. CA and Alegro
FACTS: Alan Alegro, the petitioner, was married with Lea in
January 1995. Lea arrived home late in February 1995 and
Alan told her that if she enjoys life of a single person, it will be
better for her to go back to her parents. Lea left after that
fight. Allan checked if she went to her parents’ house but was
not there and even inquired to her friends. He went back to
the parents-in-law’s house and learned that Lea had been to
their house but left without notice. He then sought help from
the Barangay Captain. For sometime, Alan decided to work as
part-time taxi driver and during his free time he would look
for Lea in the malls. In June 2001, Alan reported Lea’s
disappearance to the local police station and an alarm notice
was issued. He also reported the disappearance in NBI on July
2001. Alan filed a petition in March 2001 for the declaration
of presumptive death of his wife.
ISSUE: Whether Alan has a well-founded belief that his wife is
already dead.
HELD: The court ruled that Alan failed to prove that he has a
well-founded belief, before he filed his petition with RTC, that
his spouse was dead. He failed to present a witness other
than the Barangay Captain. He even failed to present those
friends of Lea which he inquired to corroborate his testimony.
He also failed to make inquiries from his parents-in-law
regarding Lea’s whereabouts before filing his petition in the
RTC. It could have enhanced his credibility had he made
inquiries from his parents-in-law about Lea's whereabouts
considering that Lea's father was the owner of Radio DYMS.
He did report and seek help of the local police authorities and
NBI to locate Lea but he did so only after the OSG filed its
notice to dismiss his petition in RTC.
ee. SSS v. Vda. De Bailon
Where a person has entered into two successive marriages, a
presumption arises in favor of the validity of the second
marriage, and the burden is on the party attacking the
validity of the second marriage to prove that the first
marriage had not been dissolved.
Facts: Clemente G. Bailon and Alice P. Diaz contracted
marriage. More than 15 years later, a Petition for Declaration
of Presumptive Death has been filed before the Court of First
Instance of Sorsogon, which has been granted. Bailon,
subsequently, contracted marriage with respondent Teresita
Jarque and designated her the Social Security System (SSS)
beneficiary of the former.
SSS cancelled the claim of respondent Teresita Jarque of her
monthly pension for death benefits on the basis of the
opinion rendered by its legal department that her marriage
with Bailon was void as it was contracted during the
subsistence of Bailon’s marriage with Alice.
Teresita protested the cancellation of her monthly pension
for death benefits asserting that her marriage with Bailon was
not declared before any court of justice as bigamous or
unlawful. Hence, it remained valid and subsisting for all legal
intents and purposes.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subsequent marriage of Clemente Bailon
and respondent Teresita Jarque may terminate by mere
reappearance of the absent spouse of Bailon
HELD:
The second marriage contracted by a person with an absent
spouse endures until annulled. It is only the competent court
that can nullify the second marriage pursuant to Article 87 of
the Civil Code and upon the reappearance of the missing
spouse, which action for annulment may be filed.
The two marriages involved herein having been solemnized
prior to the effectivity on August 3, 1988 of the Family Code,
the applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil Code
which was the law in effect at the time of their celebration.
Under the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage being voidable,
it is terminated by final judgment of annulment in a case
instituted by the absent spouse who reappears or by either of
the spouses in the subsequent marriage.
Under the Family Code, no judicial proceeding to annul a
subsequent marriage is necessary. Thus Article 42 thereof
provides the subsequent marriage shall be automatically
terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance
of the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling the
previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio.
If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate
the subsequent marriage, either by affidavit or by court
action, such absentee‘s mere reappearance, even if made
known to the spouses in the subsequent marriage, will not
terminate such marriage. Since the second marriage has been
contracted because of a presumption that the former spouse
is dead, such presumption continues inspite of the spouse‘s
physical reappearance, and by fiction of law, he or she must
still be regarded as legally an absentee until the subsequent
marriage is terminated as provided by law.
In the case at bar, as no step was taken to nullify, in
accordance with law, Bailon‘s and Teresita‘s marriage prior to
the former‘s death in 1998, Teresita is rightfully the
dependent spouse-beneficiary of Bailon.
ff. Valdez v. Republic
FACTS: Angelita Valdez was married with Sofio in January
1971. She gave birth to a baby girl named Nancy. They
argued constantly because Sofio was unemployed and did not
bring home any money. In March 1972, the latter left their
house. Angelita and her child waited until in May 1972, they
decided to go back to her parent’s home. 3 years have
passed without any word from Sofio until in October 1975
when he showed up and they agreed to separate and
executed a document to that effect. It was the last time they
saw each other and had never heard of ever since. Believing
that Sofio was already dead, petitioner married Virgilio Reyes
in June 1985. Virgilio’s application for naturalization in US
was denied because petitioner’s marriage with Sofio was
subsisting. Hence, in March 2007, petitioner filed a petition
seeking declaration of presumptive death of Sofio.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s marriage with Virgilio is
valid despite lack of declaration of presumptive death of
Sofio.
HELD: The court ruled that no decree on the presumption of
Sofio’s death is necessary because Civil Code governs during
1971 and not Family Code where at least 7 consecutive years
of absence is only needed. Thus, petitioner was capacitated
to marry Virgilio and their marriage is legal and valid.
gg. Santos v. Santos
FACTS: On 2007, RTC declared petitioner Celerina J. Santos
presumptively dead after her husband, respondent Ricardo
had filed a petition for declaration of absence or presumptive
death for the purpose of remarriage. In his petition, Ricardo
alleged that when they move to Tarlac and things went wrong
with their financial status, Celerina left to work abroad as
Domestic Helper in Hong Kong and was never heard from her
again; He claimed that he exerted effort to locate Celerina;
that it was 12 years from the date of his RTC petition since
Celerina left. He believed that she passed away. And in 2008
Ricardo remarried.
On the other hand, Celerina filed a petition that she
learned about Ricardo’s petition only sometimes in 2008
when she could no longer avail the remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies.
On the same year, she filed a petition for annulment of
judgment before the court of appeal on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, Celerina claimed that
she never resided in Tarlac. She also never left and worked as
a domestic helper abroad. It was not true that she had been
absent for 12 years. Ricardo was aware that she left their
conjugal dwelling in Quezon City. It was he who left the
conjugal dwelling in 2008 to cohabit with another woman.
She was deprived of any notice of and opportunity to oppose
the petition declaring her presumptive dead.
ISSUE: Whether or not the declaration of appearance of a
presumptively dead spouse in accordance with Article 42 of
the family Code is the proper remedy for a fraudulently
obtained judgement declaring presumptive death.
RULING: An action for Annulment of judgement is proper
when the declaration of presumptive death is obtained
fraudulently. It is the remedy when RTC’s judgement, order
or resolution has become final, and the remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief are no longer available through no
fault of the petitioner.
hh. Republic v. Orcelino-Villanueva
FACTS: Edna worked as a domestic helper in Singapore in
1992 while her husband worked as a mechanic in Valencia,
Bukidnon. The two got married on December 21, 1978, in
Iligan City. While she was in Singapore(1993) , her children
informed her that her husband left their home without telling
them his whereabouts. Due to this news, she was prompted
to go back to the Philippines to look and find his husband.
Edna searched and made inquiries about her husband thru
their common friends, and parents-in-law in Iligan and
Valencia City and even went far as to his birthplace in Negros
Oriental.
15 years later she filed to the RTC a petition to
declare Romeo presumptively dead under Article 41 of the
Family Code. During the trial, she was presented as the lone
witness.
RTC grants her petition.
The OSG thru a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court questioned the decision of the RTC on
the ground that the conclusions reached by the RTC were in
direct opposition to established jurisprudence, as ruled by the
Court in Republic v. Nolasco, and U.S. v. Biasbas.
CA dismissed the OSG’s petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the strict standard approach were
followed by Edna before she filed a petition for declaration of
presumptive death of her husband.
RULING. NO. Edna claimed that she made diligent search and
inquiries to find her husband but it was found out that it was
all consisted of bare assertions without any corroborative
evidence on record. Edna did not present additional
witnesses (her children, their common friends, parents-in-
law) but herself alone. There was not even any attempt to
seek the aid of the authorities at the time her husband
disappeared.
Therefore, The petition of respondent Edna Orcelino-
Villanueva to have her husband declared presumptively dead
is DENIED.
ii.Republic v. Sareñogon, Jr.
Republic vs. Jose Sareñogon, Jr. [G.R. No. 199194] Feb 10,
2016
Facts:
On November 4, 2008, the respondent, Jose Sareñogon,
filed a petition before the RTC of Ozamiz to declare the
presumptive death of his wife Netchie Sareñogon. The
petitioner testified that they got married and had lived
together as husband and wife for a month only because he
left to work as a seaman, while his wife, Netchie, went to
Hongkong as a domestic helper. For 3 months, he did not
receive any communication from Netchie and likewise had no
idea about her whereabouts. While still abroad, he tried to
contact Netchie’s parents, but failed. He returned home after
his contract expired, then inquired from Netchie’s relatives
and friends about her whereabouts but 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.
Jose’s testimony was corroborated by his older brother
Joel Sareñogon, and by Netchie’s aunt, Consuelo Sande.
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 Netchie’s location.
On January 31, 2011, in the RTC’s decision 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 RTC’s 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: WON the “well-founded belief” requisite under Article

41 (FC) was complied with.

Held: No. This requisite needs the present spouse to prove

that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable
efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse and that
based upon these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that
under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead.
It requires exertion of active effort. At the case at bar, the
respondent, Jose Sareñogon, failed to satisfy the required
“well-founded belief” standard.
The respondent’s 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 form alleged friends
and relatives as to Netchie’s whereabouts, Jose Sareñogon
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
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.

jj. Republic v. Tampus
FACTS: Respondent Nilda B. Tampus was married to Dante L.
Del Mundo on November 29, 1975. Three days thereafter, or
on December 2, 1975, Dante, a member of the AFP, left
respondent, and went to Jolo, Sulu where he was assigned.
The couple had no children. Since then, Nilda heard no news
from Dante. She tried everything to locate him, but her
efforts proved futile. On April 14, 2009, she filed before the
RTC a petition to declare Dante as presumptively dead for the
purpose of remarriage, alleging that after the lapse of thirty-
three (33) years without any kind of communication from
him, she firmly believes that he is already dead.
ISSUE: W/N Dante should be declared presumptively dead
RULING: NO. Before a judicial declaration of presumptive
death can be obtained, it must be shown that the prior
spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the
present spouse had a well-founded belief that the prior
spouse was already dead.
Under Article 4119 of the Family Code of the
Philippines (Family Code), there are four (4) essential
requisites for the declaration of presumptive death:
The "well-founded belief in the absentee's death
requires the present spouse to prove that his/her belief was
the result of diligent and reasonable efforts 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.
In this case, Nilda testified that after Dante's
disappearance, she tried to locate him by making inquiries
with his parents, relatives, and neighbors as to his
whereabouts, but unfortunately, they also did not know
where to find him. Other than making said inquiries,
however, Nilda made no further efforts to find her husband.
She could have called or proceeded to the AFP headquarters
to request information about her husband, but failed to do
so. She did not even seek the help of the authorities or the
AFP itself in finding him. Considering her own
pronouncement that Dante was sent by the AFP on a combat
mission to Jolo, Sulu at the time of his disappearance, she
could have inquired from the AFP on the status of the said
mission, or from the members of the AFP who were assigned
thereto. To the Court's mind, therefore, Nilda failed to
actively look for her missing husband, and her purported
earnest efforts to find him by asking Dante's parents,
relatives, and friends did not satisfy the strict standard and
degree of diligence required to create a "well-founded belief
of his death.
kk. Republic v. Catubag
FACTS:
 Private Respondent Ludyson and Shanaviv were
cohabiting with each other as husband and wife, and
had 2 children together.
 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.
1. Whether the Private Respondent has complied with
the requisites of a petition for declaration of
presumptive death under Art. 41 of the Family Code.
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.
.