GR No. 123456, July 1, 2023
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JUAN DELA CRUZ and MARIA DELA CRUZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Juan and Maria Dela Cruz filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of Juan’s spouse, Anna, who had been missing for over ten years, to enable Juan to remarry. They presented testimonies of neighbors and a barangay certificate attesting to Anna’s absence. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing that the respondents failed to prove that Juan had a “well-founded belief” in Anna’s death as required under Article 41 of the Family Code. The Republic emphasized that mere absence and passage of time are insufficient, and that Juan did not demonstrate diligent efforts to locate Anna.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents presented sufficient evidence to establish the petitioner’s well-founded belief in the absentee’s death, justifying a judicial declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage.

RULING

No. The petition for the declaration of presumptive death must be denied. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.

The Court held that a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is a strict requirement for remarriage. It is not enough that the spouse has been absent for the periods specified in the Civil Code for ordinary presumptions of death. The present spouse must prove, by preponderance of evidence, that he or she had a “well-founded belief” that the absentee is already dead. This belief must be the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the absent spouse and must be based on concrete facts and circumstances. In this case, the respondents only presented evidence of Anna’s prolonged absence. The Court found that Juan did not undertake a serious search or inquiry, such as reporting to the police, seeking help from the NBI or the Red Cross, or inquiring from Anna’s relatives or last known employer. Testimonies of neighbors and a barangay certificate, without more, do not constitute the diligent search required by law. The well-founded belief must be one that would convince an ordinary, reasonable person under the same circumstances. The Court emphasized the State’s compelling interest in protecting marriage and the family, and in preventing the solemnization of bigamous unions. Therefore, the grant of the petition was erroneous.