Scribd
Upload
661 views

Republic of The Philippines v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 163604, May 6, 2005 Facts

The document summarizes a case regarding whether a petition for declaring a person presumptively dead is considered a special proceeding. The Republic appealed a trial court's decision granting a petition by Apolinaria Jomoc to declare her absent spouse presumptively dead after 9 years of absence to allow her to remarry. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of a required record on appeal for special proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding requiring a record on appeal, so a notice of appeal was sufficient to perfect the appeal.

Uploaded by

Jemson Ivan Walcien
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
661 views

Republic of The Philippines v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 163604, May 6, 2005 Facts

The document summarizes a case regarding whether a petition for declaring a person presumptively dead is considered a special proceeding. The Republic appealed a trial court's decision granting a petition by Apolinaria Jomoc to declare her absent spouse presumptively dead after 9 years of absence to allow her to remarry. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of a required record on appeal for special proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was a summary proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding requiring a record on appeal, so a notice of appeal was sufficient to perfect the appeal.

Uploaded by

Jemson Ivan Walcien
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Cases Considered as Special Proceedings

Republic of The Philippines v. Court of Appeals,


GR No. 163604, May 6, 2005

FACTS:
In “In the Matter of Declaration of Presumptive Death of Absentee Spouse
Clemente P. Jomoc, Apolinaria Malinao Jomoc, petitioner”, the RTC of Ormoc City
granted the petition and accordingly declared the absentee spouse, who had left his
petitioner-wife nine years earlier, presumptively dead.

In granting the petition, Article 41, par. 2 of the Family Code was cited wherein it
provides that for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a previous marriage where the prior spouse had been absent for four
consecutive years, the spouse present must institute summary proceedings for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect
of the reappearance of the absent spouse.

The Republic, petitioner herein, through the OSG, sought to appeal the trial court’s
decision by filing a Notice of Appeal. However, the trial court, noting that no record of
appeal was filed and served as required by and pursuant to Sec. 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, the present case being a special proceeding, disapproved the
Notice of Appeal.

The petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals after
its MR has been denied, contending that the declaration of presumptive death of a person
under Article 41 of the Family Code is not a special proceeding or a case of multiple or
separate appeals requiring a record on appeal. Petitioner cites Rule 109 of the Revised
Rules of Court which enumerates the cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed and a
record on appeal is required for an appeal to be perfected. The petition for the declaration
of presumptive death of an absent spouse not being included in the enumeration,
petitioner contends that a mere notice of appeal suffices. However, the CA affirmed the
RTC’s decision.

ISSUE:
Is a petition for the declaration of the presumptive death of a person in the nature
of a special proceeding?
RULING: Yes.
By the trial court’s citation of Article 41 of the Family Code, it is gathered that the
petition of Apolinaria Jomoc to have her absent spouse declared presumptively dead had
for its purpose her desire to contract a valid subsequent marriage. The petition for that
purpose is a summary proceeding, following Art. 41, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.

Since Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING


IN THE FAMILY LAW, contains the following provision, “Unless modified by the Supreme
Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this Codes
requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an
expeditious manner without regard to technical rules” there is no doubt that the
petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a summary proceeding under the
Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for which
calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the
filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s order sufficed.

You might also like