This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the 2005 case of Republic v. Bermudez-Lorino,[48] we held that the RTC's Decision on a Petition for declaration of presumptive death pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code is immediately final and executory. Thus, the CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a notice of appeal pertaining to such judgment.[49] Concurring in the result, Justice (later Chief Justice) Artemio Panganiban further therein pointed out that the correct remedy to challenge the RTC Decision was to institute a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and not a petition for review under Rule 45.[50] | |||||
|
2015-07-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Similarly in Republic v. Granada,[19] the Court ruled that the present spouse failed to prove her "well-founded belief" that her absent spouse was already dead prior to her filing of the petition. She simply did not exert diligent efforts to locate her husband either in the country or in Taiwan, where he was known to have worked. Moreover, she did not explain her omissions. In said case, the Court wrote:The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead. Whether or not the spouse present acted on a well-founded belief of the death of the absent spouse depends upon inquiries to be drawn from a great many circumstances occurring before and after the disappearance of an absent spouse and the nature and extent of the inquiries made by the present spouse. | |||||
|
2013-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| ii. Republic v. Granada[19] | |||||
|
2013-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On May 21, 2002, or more than four (4) years from the time of Jerry's disappearance, the respondent filed before the RTC a petition[4] for her husband's declaration of presumptive death, docketed as SP Proc. Case No. 313-25. She claimed that she had a well-founded belief that Jerry was already dead. She alleged that she had inquired from her mother-in-law, her brothers-in-law, her sisters-in-law, as well as her neighbors and friends, but to no avail. In the hopes of finding Jerry, she also allegedly made it a point to check the patients' directory whenever she went to a hospital. All these earnest efforts, the respondent claimed, proved futile, prompting her to file the petition in court. | |||||
|
2013-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| ii. Republic v. Granada[19] | |||||
|
2013-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Upon the issuance of the decision declaring his/her absent spouse presumptively dead, the present spouse's good faith in contracting a second marriage is effectively established. The decision of the competent court constitutes sufficient proof of his/her good faith and his/her criminal intent in case of remarriage is effectively negated.[28] Thus, for purposes of remarriage, it is necessary to strictly comply with the stringent standard and have the absent spouse judicially declared presumptively dead. | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| This Court has already declared in Republic v. Granda[25] that Jomoc cannot be interpreted as having superseded our pronouncements in Bermudez-Lorino, because Jomoc does not expound on the characteristics of a summary proceeding under the Family Code; Bermudez-Lorino, however, squarely touches upon the impropriety of an ordinary appeal as a vehicle for questioning a trial court's decision in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code.[26] | |||||