G.R. No. 210929, July 29, 2015
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Edna Orcelino-Villanueva, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Edna Orcelino-Villanueva and Romeo L. Villanueva were married on December 21, 1978. In 1992, Edna worked in Singapore while Romeo worked in Valencia City, Bukidnon. In 1993, Edna learned from her children that Romeo had left their conjugal home without information as to his whereabouts. Edna took a leave from work to return to the Philippines to look for him. She inquired from her parents-in-law and common friends in Iligan City, and went to his birthplace in Escalante, Negros Oriental, to inquire from his relatives, but found no leads. On August 6, 2009, Edna filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to declare Romeo presumptively dead under Article 41 of the Family Code. During trial, Edna was the lone witness. The RTC granted the petition, finding she had a well-founded belief of Romeo’s death. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, affirming the RTC decision and citing the final and executory character of such judgments under Article 247 of the Family Code. The OSG’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC decision declaring Romeo Villanueva presumptively dead despite alleged insufficiency of evidence to establish Edna’s “well-founded belief” of his death as required by Article 41 of the Family Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA decision and resolution, and DENIED Edna’s petition to have her husband declared presumptively dead. The Court held that Edna failed to prove the “well-founded belief” required under Article 41 of the Family Code. This belief must result from diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse and ascertain whether they are alive or dead, requiring active effort, not mere passive inquiry. The Court cited jurisprudence (Republic v. Nolasco, Republic v. Granada, Republic v. Cantor) establishing that efforts such as inquiring from relatives and friends, without corroborative evidence or seeking aid from authorities, are insufficient. Edna’s claimed efforts—returning to the Philippines, inquiring from in-laws, friends, and relatives in Negros Oriental—were bare, uncorroborated assertions. She was the lone witness, presented no corroborative documents or persons from whom she inquired, and did not report the disappearance to authorities. These efforts did not meet the stringent standard required to protect the institution of marriage, and thus, no well-founded belief of death was established.