Procedure Re. Summarry Proceedings in FC 238-256
Procedure Re. Summarry Proceedings in FC 238-256
Procedure Re. Summarry Proceedings in FC 238-256
Moreover,
the petition questioned the [trial court's] Order dated August
[G.R. NO. 163604 : May 6, 2005] 15, 1999, which declared Clemente Jomoc presumptively
dead, likewise for having been issued with grave abuse of
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HON. discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, yet, not even a
COURT OF APPEALS (Twentieth Division), HON. PRESIDING copy could be found in the records. On this score alone, the
JUDGE FORTUNITO L. MADRONA, RTC-BR. 35 and petition should have been dismissed outright in accordance
APOLINARIA MALINAO JOMOC, Respondents. with Sec. 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
(b) Escheat; For the purpose pf contracting the subsequent marriage under
the preceding paragraph, the spouses present must institute
(c) Guardianship and custody of children; a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without
(d) Trustees; prejudice to the effect of a reappearance of the absent spouse.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ
(e) Adoption;
Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on Modes of
Appeal, invoked by the trial court in disapproving petitioner's
(f) Rescission and revocation of adoption;
Notice of Appeal, provides:
(g) Hospitalization of insane persons;
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. -
(h) Habeas corpus;
(a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
(i) Change of name;
original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal
with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
(j) Voluntary dissolution of corporations; appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special
(k) Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals
children; where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the
record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
(l) Constitution of family home; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ
(n) Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. 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
Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. 'In the absence of absent spouse declared presumptively dead had for its
special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions purpose her desire to contract a valid subsequent
marriage. Ergo, the petition for that purpose is a "summary WHEREFORE, the assailed May 5, 2004 Decision of the Court
proceeding," following above-quoted Art. 41, paragraph 2 of of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the case be
the Family Code. REMANDED to it for appropriate action in light of the foregoing
discussion.
Since Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY LAW, contains the following SO ORDERED.
provision, inter alia:
xxx
x x x,
Art. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of Book I of
Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of the
Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise
known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended,
and all laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations rules and regulations, or parts
thereof, inconsistent therewith are
hereby repealed, (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
Art. 247. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final The problem came about when the judge gave due course to
and executory, the Republic's appeal upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal, and
had the entire records of the case elevated to the Court of
the Office of the Solicitor General, for the Republic of the Appeals, stating in her order of December 18, 2001, as follows:
Philippines, nevertheless filed a Notice of Appeal.8 Acting
thereon, the RTC had the records elevated to the Court of Notice of Appeal having been filed through registered mail on
Appeals which docketed the case as CA-G.R. CV No. 73884. November 22, 2001 by the Office of the Solicitor General who
received a copy of the Decision in this case on November 14,
In a decision dated September 23, 2003, the Court of Appeals, 2001, within the reglementary period fixed by the Rules, let
treating the case as an ordinary appealed case under Rule 41 the entire records of this case be transmitted to the Court of
of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, denied the Republic's Appeals for further proceedings.
appeal and accordingly affirmed the appealed RTC decision:
SO ORDERED.10
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the instant
appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the appealed November 7, In Summary Judicial Proceedings under the Family Code, there
2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal is no reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal,
in Spec. Proc. No. 325-00 SM is hereby AFFIRMED. precisely because judgments rendered thereunder, by express
provision of Section 247, Family Code, supra, are "immediately
SO ORDERED.9 final and executory". It was erroneous, therefore, on the part
of the RTC to give due course to the Republic's appeal and
Without filing any motion for reconsideration, petitioner order the transmittal of the entire records of the case to the
Republic directly went to this Court via the instant recourse Court of Appeals.
under Rule 45, maintaining that the petition raises a pure
question of law that does not require prior filing of a motion An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a
for reconsideration. judgment which, by express provision of law, is immediately
final and executory. As we have said in Veloria v.
The foregoing factual antecedents present to this Court the Comelec,11 "the right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a
following issues: part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege."
Since, by express mandate of Article 247 of the Family Code,
all judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS DULY ACQUIRED
Family Law are "immediately final and executory", the right to
JURISDICTION OVER THE APPEAL ON A FINAL AND EXECUTORY
appeal was not granted to any of the parties therein. The
JUDGMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; andcralawlibrary
Republic of the Philippines, as oppositor in the petition for
declaration of presumptive death, should not be treated
WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES FOR A
differently. It had no right to appeal the RTC decision of
JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH UNDER
November 7, 2001.
ARTICLE 41 OF THE FAMILY CODE WERE DULY ESTABLISHED IN
THIS CASE.
It was fortunate, though, that the Court of Appeals, acting
through its Special Fourth Division, with Justice Elvi John S.
The Court rules against petitioner Republic.
Asuncion as Acting Chairman and ponente, denied the
Republic's appeal and affirmed without modification the final
Article 238 of the Family Code, under Title XI: SUMMARY and executory judgment of the lower court. For, as we have
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY LAW, sets the tenor for held in Nacuray v. NLRC :12
cases covered by these rules, to wit:
Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment
Art. 238. Until modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural becomes final and executory it becomes immutable and
rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any
Code requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is
be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
technical rules. whether made by the highest court of the land (citing Nunal v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94005, 6 April 1993, 221 SCRA 26).
Judge Elizabeth Balquin-Reyes of RTC, Branch 75, San Mateo,
Rizal duly complied with the above-cited provision by But, if only to set the records straight and for the future
expeditiously rendering judgment within ninety (90) days after guidance of the bench and the bar, let it be stated that the
RTC's decision dated November 7, 2001, was immediately final
and executory upon notice to the parties. It was erroneous for
the OSG to file a notice of appeal, and for the RTC to give due
course thereto. The Court of Appeals acquired no jurisdiction
over the case, and should have dismissed the appeal outright
on that ground.
The Court, therefore, finds in this case grave error on the part
of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals. To stress, the Court
of Appeals should have dismissed the appeal on ground of lack
of jurisdiction, and reiterated the fact that the RTC decision of
November 7, 2001 was immediately final and executory. As it
were, the Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error
when it failed to dismiss the erroneous appeal of the Republic
on ground of lack of jurisdiction because, by express provision
of law, the judgment was not appealable.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
[G.R. NO. 161062 : July 31, 2009] City RTC issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. FERVENTINO U.
TANGO, Respondent. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, declaring MARIA
JOSE V. VILLARBA, wife of FERVENTINO U. TANGO,
DECISION presumptively dead within the meaning of Article 41 of the
Family Code.
QUISUMBING, J.:
SO ORDERED. 6
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the
Decision1 dated November 28, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in This prompted the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the
CA-G.R. CV No. 76387 which denied the Republic's appeal from Republic, to file a Notice of Appeal.7 Acting thereon, Presiding
the Order2 dated July 23, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Romulo SG. Villanueva of the Ligao City RTC had the
of Ligao City, Branch 11 in Special Proceeding No. 357. The trial records of the case transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
court had declared the wife of respondent Ferventino U. Tango
(Ferventino), Maria Jose Villarba (Maria), presumptively dead The Court of Appeals, treating the case as an ordinary
under Article 413 of the Family Code. appealed case under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, affirmed
the RTC's Order. It held that Maria's absence for 14 years
The present controversy arose from the following facts: without information about her location despite diligent search
by Ferventino was sufficient to support a well-founded belief
On March 9, 1987, Ferventino and Maria were married 4 in civil of her death. The appellate court observed that neither the
rites before then Mayor Ignacio Bunye of Muntinlupa City. OSG nor the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor objected to the
None of Maria's relatives witnessed the ceremony as they evidence which Ferventino presented on trial. It noted, in
were opposed to her relationship with Ferventino. The two particular, that the OSG did not dispute the adequacy of
had only spent a night together and had been intimate once Ferventino's basis to engender a well-founded belief that
when Maria told Ferventino that she and her family will soon Maria is dead. Hence, in a Decision dated November 28, 2003,
be leaving for the United States of America (USA). Maria the Court of Appeals denied the Republic's appeal in this tenor:
assured Ferventino, however, that she will file a petition so he
can live with her in the USA. In the event that said petition is WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the
denied, she promised to return to the Philippines to live with July 23, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City,
him. On March 13, 1987, Maria and her family flew to Seattle, Branch 11 in Spec. Proc. No. 357 is AFFIRMED.
USA.
SO ORDERED.8
Ferventino alleges that Maria kept in touch for a year before
she stopped responding to his letters. Out of resentment, he Before us, petitioner anchors this Petition for Review
burned all the letters Maria wrote him. He claims to have on Certiorari on the following two grounds:
forgotten her address since.
I.
Ferventino recounts the efforts he made to find Maria. Upon
inquiry from the latter's uncle, Antonio Ledesma, in Las Piñas, THE TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT ON THE ALLEGED EFFORTS
Ferventino learned that even Maria's relatives were unaware MADE BY HIS FRIEND AND RELATIVES IN LOCATING HIS
of her whereabouts. He also solicited the assistance of a friend MISSING WIFE IN SEATTLE, UNITED STATES, IS HEARSAY AND
in Texas, Capt. Luis Aris of the U.S. Air Force, but to no avail. DEVOID OF PROBATIVE VALUE[; AND]
Finally, he sought the aid of his parents Antonio and Eusebia in
Los Angeles, and his aunt Anita Castro-Mayor in Seattle. Like, II.
Ledesma though, their attempts to find Maria proved fruitless.
The next 14 years went by without any news of Maria.
EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE AFORESAID TESTIMONY MAY BE
CONSIDERED IN EVIDENCE, THE ALLEGED EFFORTS OF
On the belief that his wife had died, Ferventino filed a verified RESPONDENT'S FRIEND AND RELATIVES IN LOCATING HIS
petition5 dated October 1, 2001 before the Ligao City RTC for MISSING WIFE IN SEATTLE, UNITED STATES, DO NOT
the declaration of presumptive death of Maria within the SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORT A "WELL-FOUNDED BELIEF" THAT
contemplation of Article 41 of the Family Code. RESPONDENT'S ABSENT SPOUSE IS PROBABLY DEAD. 9
When the case was called for initial hearing on January 8, 2002, Unadorned, the issues for our determination are: (1) whether
nobody entered any opposition. On July 22, 2002, Ferventino the testimony of respondent Ferventino is hearsay; and (2)
presented evidence ex parte and testified in court about the whether respondent Ferventino has established a basis to
details of his search. On July 23, 2002, Branch 11 of the Ligao
form a well-founded belief that his absent spouse is already In turn, Article 253 of the Family Code specifies the cases
dead. covered by the rules in chapters two and three of the same
title. It states:
The Republic, through the OSG, contests the appellate court's
holding that the absence of respondent's wife Maria for 14 ART. 253. The foregoing rules in Chapters 2 and 3 hereof shall
years provides sufficient basis to entertain a well-founded likewise govern summary proceedings filed under Articles 41,
belief that she is dead. The OSG discounts respondent's 51, 69, 73, 96, 124 and 217, insofar as they are applicable.
testimony, on the steps he took to find Maria, as hearsay (Emphasis supplied.)
because none of the persons who purportedly helped in his
search testified in court. Notably, the OSG observes that only In plain text, Article 247 in Chapter 2 of the same title reads:
Capt. Aris gave a detailed account of his efforts to track down
Maria. According to Capt. Aris, he went over the Seattle phone ART 247. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final
directory for Maria's name and inquired about her from the and executory.
registrar's office in Seattle, but both efforts proved to be in
vain.
By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a
summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory.
The OSG belittles its failure to object to the admissibility of As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of
respondent's testimony during trial. Instead, it invokes the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the
Constitutional provisions that advocate the state policy of declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under
preserving marital institutions. Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however,
that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to
On March 16, 2007, respondent's counsel, Atty. Richie R. question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Regala, manifested to this Court his intent to withdraw as Such petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in
counsel for respondent. According to Atty. Regala, he received accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. To be
a letter by which respondent expressed a desire to withdraw sure, even if the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ
from the proceeding.10 In view of this, the Court issued a of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of
Resolution11 on April 21, 2008 which deemed as waived the Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction
filing of respondent's comment on the petition. Previously, the an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. 13 From the
Court of Appeals had also issued a Resolution 12 dated October decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party may then file
15, 2003 submitting the case for decision and ordering its re- a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
raffling for respondent's failure to file an appellee's brief. In of Court with the Supreme Court. This is because the errors
other words, apart from the verified petition for the which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are
declaration of presumptive death of Maria dated October 1, merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an
2001, which respondent filed before the Ligao City RTC, he has appeal.14 ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
not submitted any other pleading in connection with the
petition. In the case before us, petitioner committed a serious
procedural lapse when it filed a notice of appeal in the Court
Respondent's apparent lack of desire to pursue the of Appeals instead of a petition for certiorari . The RTC equally
proceedings notwithstanding, the Court is inclined to rule erred in giving due course to said appeal and ordering the
against the Republic. transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court. By
no means did the Court of Appeals acquire jurisdiction to
This case presents an opportunity for us to settle the rule on review the judgment of the RTC which, by express provision of
appeal of judgments rendered in summary proceedings under law, was immediately final and executory.
the Family Code and accordingly, refine our previous decisions
thereon. Adding to the confusion, the Court of Appeals entertained the
appeal and treated the same as an ordinary appeal under Rule
Article 238 of the Family Code, under Title XI: SUMMARY 41 of the Rules of Court. As it were, the Court of Appeals
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY LAW, establishes the committed grave reversible error when it failed to dismiss the
rules that govern summary court proceedings in the Family erroneous appeal of the Republic on the ground of lack of
Code: jurisdiction because, by express provision of the law, the
judgment was not appealable.15
ART. 238. Until modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural
rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this Before us, petitioner filed a Petition for Review
Code requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. But, even if
be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to petitioner used the correct mode of appeal at this level, the
technical rules. hands of the Court are tied. Without a doubt, the decision of
the trial court had long become final.
Deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence is the principle that a
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable. As such, it may no longer be modified in any
respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the
court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. 16 In
light of the foregoing, it would be unnecessary, if not useless,
to discuss the issues raised by petitioner.
SO ORDERED.