Technicality

This case shows how a marriage bond can be dissolved which after all seems to have been created out of fiction than reality. This is the case of Tony and Nena.

Tony and Nena’s relationship had always been opposed by Nena’s family. But they still decided to get married on March 9, 1987 in a civil ceremony before a Municipal Mayor with none of Nena’s family present.

After the wedding, the couple spent only a night together and had intimate relationship only once, Nena told Tony that she and her family will soon be leaving for the United States (USA) but she assured him that she will file a petition so he can live with her in the USA. Nena also promised that in the event said petition is denied, she would return to the Philippines and live with him. So four days after the marriage or on March 13, 1987, Nena and her family flew to Seattle USA.

Thereafter the couple kept in touch with each other through letters, but after one year Nena stopped responding to Tony’s letters. Out of resentment Tony burned all of Nena’s letters to him and thus had forgotten even her address.

On October 1, 2001, with no contact for more than 13 years and believing that Nena had died, Tony filed a verified petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of her presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code which provides that he can institute a summary proceeding when his spouse has been absent for four consecutive years and he has a well founded belief that she is already dead thereby enabling him to marry again if he wants to.

At the initial hearing of the case, nobody entered any opposition. So Tony presented his evidence ex-parte and testified in court about the details of his search for Nena. He recounted his efforts in looking for her to the extent of searching for Nena’s relatives here. He said he found Nena’s uncle in Las Piñas who informed him that they were unaware of Nena’s whereabouts. He said he also solicited the assistance of his friend in the Texas Air Force who went over the Seattle phone directory for Nena’s name and inquired about her from the Registrar’s Office in Seattle, but both efforts proved to be in vain. Then as a final attempt at locating Nena, Tony said he sought the help of his parents then already living in LA, and his aunt in Seattle. But their attempts to find Nena also proved futile.

Based on Tony’s testimony, the RTC rendered a decision on July 23, 2002 declaring Nena presumptively dead within the meaning of Article 41 of the Family Code.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for the Republic of the Philippines thus filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The OSG asserted that Tony’s testimony regarding his efforts to search for Nena was hearsay because none of the persons who purportedly helped in his search testified in court. Their failure to object to its admissibility is not enough reason for the lower court to accept such hearsay evidence because doing so would render nugatory the State policy of preserving marital unions as provided in the Constitution, the OSG contended. Would the OSG’s appeal prosper?

No. By express provision of law (Article 247 in relation to Article 238 and 253 of the Family Code), no appeal can be had of the RTC’s judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. The adverse party can only file a petition for certiorari. In this case the OSG committed a procedural lapse when it filed a notice of appeal to the CA instead of a petition for certiorari. So without a doubt, the decision of the RTC had long become final. A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable 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. The only exceptions to this general rule are: correction of clerical errors; the so called nunc pro tunc (then for now) entries which cause no prejudice to any party; void judgments; and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision that would render its execution unjust and inequitable. None of the exceptions obtains here to merit the review sought. Hence it would be unnecessary, if not useless, to discuss the issues raised by the OSG (Republic vs. Tango, G.R. 161062, July 31, 2009). Tony got his wish by TKO.

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]