DIGEST/ FLORES MAY L. OROSA/ REPUBLIC VS SAREÑOGON (February 10, 2016)

G.R. No. 199194

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
JOSE B. SAREÑOGON, JR., Respondent.

 

FACTS:

On November 4, 2008, the respondent, Jose Sareñogon, filed a petition before the RTC of Ozamiz to declare the presumptive death of his wife Netchie Sareñogon.

The petitioner testified that they got married and had lived together as husband and wife for a month only because he left to work as a seaman, while his wife, Netchie, went to Hongkong as a domestic helper. For 3 months, he did not receive any communication from Netchie and likewise had no idea about her whereabouts. While still abroad, he tried to contact Netchie’s parents, but failed. He returned home after his contract expired, then inquired from Netchie’s relatives and friends about her whereabouts but they also did not know where she was. Because of these, he had to presume that his wife, Netchie was already dead. He filed the Petition before the RTC so he could contract another marriage pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code.

 Jose’s testimony was corroborated by his older brother Joel Sareñogon, and by Netchie’s aunt, Consuelo Sande. These two witnesses testified that Jose and Netchie lived together as husband and wife only for one month prior to their leaving the Philippines for separate destinations abroad and added that they had no information regarding Netchie’s location.

On January 31, 2011, in the RTC’s decision found that Netchie had disappeared for more than four years, reason enough for Jose to conclude that his wife was indeed already dead.

The OSG questioned the RTC ruling via Rule 65 before the CA for the RTC’s error in its misappreciation of evidence. The CA saw no error in the RTC judgment and further held that Rule 65 is the wrong recourse in elevating a declaration of presumptive death judgment from the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether  Rule 65 is the proper recourse to question the RTC ruling

 

RULING:

Yes.

Under Art. 247 of the Family Code, the RTC’s decision on a petition pursuant to Article 41 of the same code is immediately final and executory.

By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. To be sure, even if the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.

In sum, under Article 41 of the Family Code, the losing party in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death may file a petition for certiorari with the CA on the ground that, in rendering judgment thereon, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. From the Decision of the CA, the aggrieved party may elevate the matter to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Republic correctly availed of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court in assailing before the CA the aforesaid RTCs Decision.