IS A MARRIAGE VALID DESPITE THE LACK OF DECLARATION OF

PRESUMPTIVE DEATH?

TITLE: ANGELITA VALDEZ vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No: 180863, September 8, 2009

PONENTE: NACHURA, J.

DOCTRINE: Void marriage under Art. 83, Validity of Marriage on the grounds of
Presumption of death

FACTS: Angelita Valdez was married with Sofio in January 1971. She gave birth to a
baby girl named Nancy. They argued constantly because Sofio was unemployed and
did not bring home any money. In March 1972, the latter left their house. Angelita
and her child waited until in May 1972, they decided to go back to her parent’s home.
3 years have passed without any word from Sofio until in October 1975 when he
showed up and they agreed to separate and executed a document to that effect. It
was the last time they saw each other and had never heard of ever since. Believing
that Sofio was already dead, petitioner married Virgilio Reyes in June 1985. Virgilio’s
application for naturalization in US was denied because petitioner’s marriage with
Sofio was subsisting. Hence, in March 2007, petitioner filed a petition seeking
declaration of presumptive death of Sofio.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s marriage with Virgilio is valid despite lack of
declaration of presumptive death of Sofio.

RULING: Yes. Petitioner’s marriage with Virgilio is valid despite lack of declaration of
presumptive death of Sofio.

Pursuant to Article 83 of the Civil Code, any marriage subsequently contracted by

any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person
other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance, unless:

(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or

(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the
second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being
alive, of if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is
generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the
time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead
according to Articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any
of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court.

Therefore, under the Civil Code, the presumption of death is established by law and
no court declaration is needed for the presumption to arise. Since death is presumed
to have taken place by the seventh year of absence, Sofio is to be presumed dead
starting October 1982. Consequently, at the time of petitioner’s marriage to Virgilio,
there existed no impediment to petitioner’s capacity to marry, and the marriage is
valid under paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Civil Code.
FOUR (4) REQUISITES FOR DELCARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH

TITLE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GREGORIO NOLASCO

GR No: 94053, March 17, 1993

PONENTE: FELICIANO, J.

DOCTRINE: Requisites for declaration of presumptive death

FACTS: Gregorio Nolasco is a seaman. He met Janet Parker, a British, in bar in

England. After that, Janet started living with Nolasco in his ship for six months. It
lasted until the contract of Nolasco expired then he brought her to his hometown in
Antique. They got married in January 1982. Due to another contract, Nolasco left the
province. In 1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother informing him that his
son had been born but 15 days after, Janet left. Nolasco went home and cut short
his contract to find Janet’s whereabouts. He did so by securing another seaman’s
contract going to London. He wrote several letters to the bar where they first met
but it was all returned. Gregorio petitioned in 1988 for a declaration of
presumptive death of Janet.

ISSUE: Whether or not Nolasco had a well-founded belief that his wife, Janet, is
already dead?

RULING: There are 4 requisites for the declaration of presumptive death under
Article 41 of the Family Code:

1. That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two
consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of death
under the circumstances laid down in Article 391, Civil Code;

2. That the present spouse wishes to remarry;

3. That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead;

4. That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee;

The Supreme Court ruled that Nolasco’s efforts to locate Janet were not
persistent to show that he has a well-founded belief that his wife was already
dead because instead of seeking assistance of local authorities and the British
Embassy, he even secured another contract. More so, while he was in London,
he did not even try to solicit help of the authorities to find his wife.
PRESUMPTION OF DEATH OF THE SPOUSE BEFORE THE FAMILY CODE
WAS IMPLEMENTED

TITLE: THE UNITED STATES vs. MACARIO BIASBAS

GR No: L-8381, August 14, 1913

PONENTE: JOHNSON, J

DOCTRINE: Presumption of death before the Family Code.

FACTS: This defendant was charged with the crime of bigamy. The complaint
alleged:

That on or about Saturday, November 4, 1911, in the court of the justice of the peace
of the municipality of Santo Tomas, Batangas, and within the jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance, the defendant maliciously and criminally married Agustina Ramos,
notwithstanding the fact that his previous marriage with Juliana Rodriguez in the
municipality of Dagupan, Province of Pangasinan, had not been dissolved. Contrary
to law and in violation of article 471 of the Penal Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant is guilty of bigamy

RULING: YES. The defendant is guilty of bigamy

The SC held that “1. That the defendant had not exercised due diligence to ascertain
the whereabouts of his first wife.

2. Even though admitting that he had made diligent search concerning her
whereabouts, she had not been absent for a period of seven years before the
second marriage took place. It will be remembered that he left his wife in the months
of October or November, 1904, and that he received information from his parents
that she had remained with them for a period of two months after he had gone away.
He knew, therefore, her whereabouts certainly up to the month of December, 1904,
or January, 1905. Counting them from the month of December, 1904, until the 4th of
November, 1911, the time of the second marriage, it will be seen that seven
successive years immediately preceding said marriage had not elapsed.”

And under the section 3 of General Orders, No. 68, provides that:

A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the life of the former
husband or wife of such person, with any person other than such former
husband or wife, is illegal and void from the beginning, unless:

1. The former marriage has been annulled or dissolved; and

2. Unless such former husband or wife was absent and not known to such
person to be living for the space of seven successive years immediately
preceding such subsequent marriage, or was generally reputed and was
believed by such person to be dead, at the time such subsequent marriages
 was contracted; in either of which cases the subsequent marriage is valid,
until its nullity is adjudged by a competent tribunal.

Therefore, the accused is guilty of bigamy because he is still married to his first wife,
their marriage is still valid. And he cannot contend the presumptive death of his first
wife because his wife was not absent and not known to such person to be living for
the space of seven successive years.
BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE ABSENT SPOUSE IS ALREADY DEAD

TITLE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

GR No: 159614, December 9, 2005

PONENTE: CALLEJO, SR. J.

DOCTRINE: Presumptive Death of the spouse

FACTS: Alan Alegro, the petitioner, was married with Lea in January 1995. Lea
arrived home late in February 1995 and Alan told her that if she enjoys life of a single
person, it will be better for her to go back to her parents. Lea left after that fight. Allan
checked if she went to her parents’ house but was not there and even inquired to her
friends. He went back to the parents-in-law’s house and learned that Lea had been
to their house but left without notice. He then sought help from the Barangay
Captain. For some time, Alan decided to work as part-time taxi driver and during his
free time he would look for Lea in the malls. In June 2001, Alan reported Lea’s
disappearance to the local police station and an alarm notice was issued. He also
reported the disappearance in NBI on July 2001. Alan filed a petition in March 2001
for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife

ISSUES: Whether Alan has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.

RULING: The spouse present is, thus, burdened to prove that his spouse has been
absent and that he has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead
before the present spouse may contract a subsequent marriage. The law does not
define what is meant by a well-grounded belief. Cuello Callon writes that es
menester que su creencia sea firme se funde en motivos racionales. Belief is a state
of the mind or condition prompting the doing of an overt act. It may be proved by
direct evidence or circumstantial evidence which may tend, even in a slight degree,
to elucidate the inquiry or assist to a determination probably founded in truth. Any
fact or circumstance relating to the character, habits, conditions, attachments,
prosperity and objects of life which usually control the conduct of men, and are the
motives of their actions, was, so far as it tends to explain or characterize their
disappearance or throw light on their intentions, competence evidence on the
ultimate question of his death.

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 death of the absent spouse
depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many circumstances occurring
before and after the disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature and extent
of the inquiries made by present spouse. Although testimonial evidence may suffice
to prove the well-founded belief of the present spouse that the absent spouse is
already dead, in Republic v. Nolasco, the Court warned against collusion between
the parties when they find it impossible to dissolve the marital bonds through existing
legal means. It is also the maxim that men readily believe what they wish to be true.
The court ruled that Alan failed to prove that he has a well-founded belief, before he
filed his petition with RTC, that his spouse was dead. He failed to present a witness
other than the Barangay Captain. He even failed to present those friends of Lea
which he inquired to corroborate his testimony. He also failed to make inquiries from
his parents-in-law regarding Lea’s whereabouts before filing his petition in the RTC.
It could have enhanced his credibility had he made inquiries from his parents-in-law
about Lea’s whereabouts considering that Lea’s father was the owner of Radio
DYMS. He did report and seek help of the local police authorities and NBI to locate
Lea but he did so only after the OSG file its notice to dismiss his petition in RTC.
INTENTION OF THE FRAMERS OF THE RULES OF COURT BY THE
DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTION OF DEATH

TITLE: PETITION FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF DEATH OF NICOLAI SZATRAW,

CONSUELO SORS

GR No: L-1780, August 31, 1948

PONENTE: PADILLA, J.

DOCTRINE: Judicial Declaration of Presumptive death

FACTS: Pleading under oath that she is the lawful wife of Nicolas Szatraw, a Polish
citizen, to whom she was married in Manila on November, 1936, whom she bore a
child named Alexis Szatraw born on 8 September 1937, with whom she had lived
from the time they were married until February, 1940, when her husband, on the
pretext that he would call on some friends, departed from the conjugal abode
carrying the child along with him and never returned, about whose whereabouts she
made inquiries from among her husband's friends and countrymen and learned that
her husband and child had left for Shanghai, where, according, however, to
information obtained from Polish citizens who had arrived from that place, he and the
child had not been seen and could not be found; that all her efforts to know the
whereabouts of her husband and child were in vain; and that, because of her
husband's absence for more than seven years during which she has not heard any
news from him and about her child, she believes that he is dead, Consuelo Sors
prays that her husband be declared dead and that her parental authority over her
child, should the latter be alive and later on appear, be preserved
.
ISSUES: Whether or not a judicial decree declaring a person unheard from in seven
years to be presumptively dead can obtain a decree of divorce
RULING: NO. a judicial decree declaring a person unheard from in seven years to
be presumptively dead cannot obtain a decree of divorce.
Little effort is necessary to perceive that a declaration such as the one prayed for by
the petitioner, if granted, may make or lead her to believe that the marital bonds
which bind her to her husband are torn asunder, and that for that reason she is or
may feel free to enter into a new marriage contract. The framers of the rules of court,
by the presumption provided for in the rule of evidence in question, did not intend
and mean that a judicial declaration based solely upon that presumption may be
made. A petition for a declaration such as the one filed in this case may be made in
collusion with the other spouse. If that were the case, then a decree of divorce that
cannot be obtained or granted under the provisions of the Divorce Law (Act No.
2710) could easily be secured by means of a judicial decree declaring a person
unheard from in seven years to be presumptively dead. This is another strong
reason why a petition such as the one presented in this case should not be
countenanced and allowed. What cannot be obtained directly under the provisions of
Divorce Law could indirectly be secured under the provisions of Rule 123, section 69
(x). Obviously, the latter must not be made to prevail over the former.
CAN A HUSBAND SUPPORT HIS WIFE OUTSIDE OF CONJUGAL DOMICILE?

TITLE: ELOISA GOITIA DE LA CAMARA vs. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA

GR No: 11263, November 2, 1916

PONENTE: TRENT, J.

DOCTRINE: OBLIGATIONS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

FACTS: Eloisa Goitia and Jose Campos Rueda were legally married in Manila and
thereafter lived together for about a month before petitioner returned to her parent’s
home because of the following reasons: (1) Defendant demanded her to perform
unchaste and lascivious acts on her genitals; (2) Defendant made other lewd
demands; and (3) Defendant maltreated petitioner by word and by deed on the
ground that the latter refused to do any of defendant’s demands other than legal and
valid cohabitation.

Petitioner filed an action against her husband for support outside their conjugal
domicile. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent and stated that Goitia could not
compel her husband to support her except in the conjugal home unless it is by virtue
of a judicial decree granting her separation or divorce from respondent. Goitia filed
motion for review.

ISSUES: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the
conjugal home.

RULING: Yes. Campos Rueda was held liable to support his wife. The law provides
that the husband, who is obliged to support the wife, may fulfill the obligation either
by paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his option.
However, this option given by law is NOT absolute.

This obligation is founded not so much on the express or implied terms of the
contract of marriage as on the natural and legal duty of the husband; an obligation,
the enforcement of which is of such vital concern to the state itself that the laws will
not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his wife to seek
protection in the parental home. A judgment for separate maintenance is not due and
payable either as damages or as a penalty; nor is it a debt in the strict legal sense of
the term, but rather a judgment calling for the performance of a duty made specific
by the mandate of the sovereign. This is done from necessity and with a view to
preserve the public peace and the purity of the wife; as where the husband makes so
base demands upon his wife and indulges in the habit of assaulting her.

In the case at bar, the wife was forced to leave the conjugal abode because of the
lewd designs and physical assault of the husband, she can therefore claim support
from the husband for separate maintenance even outside the conjugal home. The
pro tanto separation resulting from a decree for separate support is not an
impeachment of that public policy by which marriage is regarded as so sacred and
inviolable in its nature; it is merely a stronger policy overruling a weaker one; and
except in so far only as such separation is tolerated as a means of preserving the
public peace and morals may be considered, it does NOT in any respect whatever
impair the marriage contract or for any purpose place the wife in the situation of a
feme sole.
________________________

TITLE: MONS. JUAN JAMIAS vs. EULOGIO B. RODRIGUEZ

GR No: L-2133, July 22, 1948

PONENTE: PERFECTO, J.

DOCTRINE: AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES

FACTS:
ISSUES:
RULING: