GR 212726 Lazaro Javier (Digest)
G.R. No. 212726 , June 10, 2020
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. LEILANIE DELA CRUZ FENOL, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent Leilanie Dela Cruz Fenol sought a judicial declaration of the presumptive death of her husband, Reneto Alilongan Suminguit, under Article 41 of the Family Code. Reneto left their conjugal home in Malayan, M’lang, Cotabato in January 2001 to apply for work overseas in Manila and never returned. Leilanie searched for him by staying in Manila for seven months, working abroad for three years while continuing her search, and later going to Cayawan, Davao del Norte (Reneto’s birthplace) to inquire with his family and relatives, all to no avail. She received no information about his whereabouts or whether he was alive. The trial court and the Court of Appeals granted the petition. The Republic, through the OSG, petitioned for review, arguing Leilanie’s efforts were insufficient to prove a well-founded belief that Reneto was dead, citing her failure to report the disappearance to authorities or present other witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the declaration of presumptive death, specifically, whether Leilanie exerted the diligent and reasonable efforts required to form a “well-founded belief” that her absent spouse is dead under Article 41 of the Family Code.
RULING
The Dissenting Opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier voted to deny the petition and affirm the lower courts’ rulings. The opinion held that Leilanie established a well-founded belief based on the circumstances of her case. Her search, though unsuccessful, was sincere, diligent, and laborious, spanning nine years and involving travel to Manila, Davao del Norte, and abroad despite financial hardship and the burden of raising their child alone. The determination of whether she exerted her best efforts is a question of fact conclusively resolved by the trial and appellate courts, supported by the record. The opinion emphasized that Article 41 requires only a “reasonable belief” or presumption of death, not absolute certainty, and that the law provides safeguards (Articles 41 and 42) in case the absent spouse reappears. Thus, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error.