GR 163604; (May, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163604 ; May 6, 2005
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Twentieth Division), HON. PRESIDING JUDGE FORTUNITO L. MADRONA, RTC-BR. 35 and APOLINARIA MALINAO JOMOC, respondents.
FACTS
Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her absent spouse, Clemente P. Jomoc, who had left nine years prior. The Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Branch 35, granted the petition based on Article 41 of the Family Code. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Notice of Appeal. The trial court, however, disapproved this notice, ruling that the case was a special proceeding requiring a record on appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Republic then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing that a declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 is not a special proceeding necessitating a record on appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, it found the petition insufficient for failing to attach certified copies of certain assailed orders. Substantively, it ruled that the petition was indeed a special proceeding—a remedy to establish a particular fact—and thus required a record on appeal to perfect an appeal.
ISSUE
Whether a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code is a special proceeding requiring the filing of a record on appeal to perfect an appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the petition is not a special proceeding but a summary judicial proceeding under the Family Code, for which a mere notice of appeal suffices. The legal logic is anchored on the specific statutory framework governing such declarations. Article 41 of the Family Code explicitly prescribes a “summary proceeding” for this purpose. Furthermore, Article 238 of the Family Code’s Title XI on “Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law” mandates that such cases be governed by their own procedural rules and decided expeditiously without strict adherence to technical rules.
Crucially, the Court distinguished this from the special proceedings enumerated under Rule 72 of the Revised Rules of Court, which includes “Declaration of absence and death.” The Court clarified that the declaration under the Civil Code (which is listed in Rule 72) is distinct from the summary declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code, which is designed specifically to allow a spouse to remarry. This interpretation is reinforced by Article 254 of the Family Code, which repealed inconsistent provisions of the Civil Code and other laws. Therefore, the general rules on appeals for special proceedings, requiring a record on appeal, do not apply. The trial court erred in disapproving the mere Notice of Appeal. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.