Presumptive death proceedings

When a person has been missing for quite some time, the present spouse may file a petition for declaration of the former's presumptive death. This means that said spouse believes, after diligent search and passage of time, that his or her other half is presumably dead and must accordingly be declared as such. Take note, the spouse must have a well-founded belief.

Such was the plight of Leilanie de la Cruz Fenol. She married Reneto in July 2000. In January 2001, Reneto left Cotabato for Manila on the pretext of supposed overseas job-hunting. Lo and behold, after Reneto left their home, Leilanie never heard from him again. This continued for the next eight years. Finally throwing in the towel, she instituted the petition for the declaration of the presumptive death of Reneto in November 2009. During trial, she testified that she exerted earnest efforts to locate Reneto. She even went to Manila and stayed there for seven months supposedly to find him. She also went to Davao del Norte to ask Reneto's relatives about where to find him. To her dismay, no one had a clue. Her never-ending quest prompted her even to go work abroad in the hope of finding her husband there. Such adventure however proved futile.

The trial court found her petition meritorious. Thus the court said, "the well-founded belief being required under the Family Code has been preponderantly established by the respondent because although there were no concrete documentary evidence presented by her in Court to justify the declaration of Reneto as presumptively dead, the circumstances of the case would point to the fact that the respondent's husband has already been absent for more than nine years. And to allow the respondent to wait a little longer, to await her husband's return, without certainty, would be unfair to the respondent and to her daughter, who already suffered so much when the respondent's husband left them way back in 2001."

The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the interest of the State, was in disagreement with the trial court's decision. It went up to the Court of Appeals to question it. The appellate court however gave its thumbs up to the trial court. This prompted the Solicitor General to elevate it further to the Supreme Court. The Highest Court ruled, "we find that the respondent failed to satisfy the 'well-founded belief' requirement in Article 41 of the Family Code… Clearly, it is not enough that the present spouse holds a firm conviction that his/her spouse is already dead and alleges the same in his/her petition. Belief is a state of mind which may only be established by direct evidence or circumstances or circumstantial evidence that tends, even in a slight degree, to elucidate the inquiry or assist in a determination probably founded in truth. At the same time, the law does not demand positive certainty of the absent spouse's death, for to do so would run counter to the very essence of a petition for the declaration of presumptive death. Thus, to meet the requirement of the law, the present spouse must allege and prove that his/her belief is the result of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to locate the absent spouse and determine whether he/she is still alive or not. The term 'proper' and 'honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts' is tantamount to diligent and reasonable inquiries and search to ascertain the absent spouse's whereabouts."

"Respondent's so-called 'earnest efforts' only consisted of two instances… to inquire about her husband's whereabouts from his family and relatives. When Reneto's family members denied knowing his whereabouts, the respondent took it as gospel truth without even bothering to inquire from the neighbors or other disinterested persons as to the veracity of their narrative. She heavily relied on the uncorroborated and naturally biased statement of her husband's relatives. Interestingly, the respondent did not present Reneto's family and relatives who could have attested that she personally inquired from them about Reneto's whereabouts and that she exerted active efforts to ascertain his location and status. Time and again, we have held that the present spouse's bare assertion that he inquired from his friends or from the relatives of his absent spouse about the latter's whereabouts is insufficient especially when the names of the persons from whom he made inquiries were not identified in the testimony nor presented as witnesses, as in this case. It bears stressing that other than the above earnest efforts, respondent made no further attempt to find her husband… A claim of a diligent search cannot be given credence sans evidentiary support."