G.R. No. 199194, February 10, 2016
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Jose B. Sareñogon, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Jose B. Sareñogon, Jr. filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife, Netchie, under Article 41 of the Family Code to remarry. He testified that they married in 1996 but lived together for only one month before he left to work as a seaman and she went to Hong Kong as a domestic helper. After three months without communication, he tried to contact her parents and, upon returning to the Philippines, inquired with her relatives and friends, but all efforts failed to locate her. His testimony was corroborated by his brother and Netchie’s aunt. The RTC granted the petition, finding a well-founded belief of Netchie’s death after over four years of disappearance.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, challenged the RTC Decision via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari was the wrong remedy as it could not correct the RTC’s evaluation of evidence, which was an error of judgment correctible only by appeal. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Republic’s Petition for Certiorari and whether the respondent presented sufficient evidence to establish a “well-founded belief” that his absent spouse is probably dead.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Republic’s petition, reversing the CA. On the procedural issue, the Court clarified that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge an RTC decision declaring presumptive death. Such a decision is immediately final and executory under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, leaving no appeal available. The CA therefore erred in dismissing the petition on procedural grounds.
On the substantive merits, the Court held that the respondent failed to prove a “well-founded belief” of his wife’s death as required by Article 41. The standard demands sincere and honest efforts to locate the absent spouse, which must be shown by specific, not merely perfunctory, actions. The respondent’s efforts—inquiring only with family and friends—were insufficient. He did not seek assistance from government agencies like the police, NBI, DFA, or immigration authorities, nor did he present disinterested witnesses or evidence of a comprehensive search. His bare assertions and the corroboration by interested relatives did not meet the stringent evidentiary threshold. The Court emphasized the State’s interest in protecting marriage and preventing abuse of Article 41 for convenience. Consequently, the RTC’s declaration of presumptive death was annulled.