Republic vs.
Quiñonez (2020)
Summary Cases:
● Republic vs. Quiñonez
Subject: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and the requirement to first file a motion for reconsideration
with the lower court; Petition filed with the Court of Appeals questions the legal application of Article 41
of the Civil Code; Essential requisites for a declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of
remarriage; Remar fell short of the requirement of exerting diligent and reasonable effort to locate his
absent spouse
Facts:
Remar Quiñonez and Lovelyn are husband and wife with two children living in Bislig City. Sometime in
2001, Lovelyn left to meet relatives in Manila for a three-month vacation. Within the first 3 months they
were able to contact each other thru cellphone. Their communication eventually tapered off until the
communication between the spouses ceased altogether.
Remar thought that his wife just lost her cellphone, so he inquired about her from their relatives in Bislig
City. Someone informed him that his wife was then already cohabiting with another man and would no
longer be coming back out of shame.
On November 2003, Remar's uncle informed him that Lovelyn was in Bislig City to visit their children.
However, Remar was not able to meet her. He also failed to find her when he went back to Manila and
then to Batangas and Cavite in the summer of 2004.
On February 27, 2013, after almost ten (10) years of trying to know about the whereabouts of his wife
from their relatives proved futile, Remar filed a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death before the
RTC. The latter granted the petition.
Subsequently, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA
seeking to annul the RTC. The Republic argued that Remar failed to establish that he "exerted proper
and honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain Lovelyn's whereabouts and whether or not she
is still alive." The petition was denied.
Hence, the petition for review on certiorari.
Legal Provision: ART. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous
marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior
spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded
belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of
death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of
only two years shall be sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph,
the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance
of the absent spouse. (Emphasis supplied)
| Page 1 of 3
Held: Petition granted.
I. Procedural Issue
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and the requirement to first file a motion for reconsideration
with the lower court
1. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 "is a special civil action that may be resorted to only in the
absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
2. As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration must first be filed with the lower court before
the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is resorted to, since a motion for reconsideration is considered a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Nevertheless, this general rule
admits of well-established exceptions, one of which is when the Issue raised is a pure question
of law.
3. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on
a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth
or the falsehood of alleged facts.
Petition filed with the Court of Appeals questions the legal application of Article 41 of the Civil
Code
4. Here, the Republic does not dispute the truthfulness of Remar's allegations, particularly, the specific
acts he claims to have done to locate Lovelyn. What the Republic does question is the sufficiency of
these acts, that is, whether they are sufficient to merit a legal declaration of Lovelyn's
presumptive death.
5. Clearly, the Republic's Petition for Certiorari raised a pure legal question. Hence, direct resort to the
CA via Rule 65, without filing with the RTC a prior motion for reconsideration, was proper.
II. Substantive Issues
Essential requisites for a declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage
a) 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;
b) That the present spouse wishes to remarry;
c) That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead; and
d) That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee.
Meaning of “well-founded belief that the absentee is dead
6. In Republic vs. Cantor, Mere absence of the spouse (even for such period required by the law), lack of
any news that such absentee is still alive, failure to communicate or general presumption of absence
under the Civil Code would not suffice. This conclusion proceeds from the premise that Article 41 of the
| Page 2 of 3
Family Code places upon the present spouse the burden of proving the additional and more stringent
requirement of "well-founded belief'' which can only be discharged upon a showing of proper and
honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's whereabouts but,
more importantly, that the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead.
7. The law did not define what is meant by '"well-founded belief." It depends upon the circumstances of
each particular case. Its determination, so to speak, remains on a case-to-case basis. To be able to
comply with this requirement, the present spouse must prove that his/her belief was the result of
diligent and reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse and that based on these
efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already
dead. It requires exertion of active effort (not a mere passive one).
Remar fell short of the requirement of exerting diligent and reasonable effort to locate his absent
spouse
8. Remar failed to allege, much less prove, the extent of the search he had conducted in the places
where he claims to have gone; Remar also failed to identify which of Lovelyn's relatives he had
communicated with, and disclose what he learned from these communications; Remar never sought the
help of the authorities to locate Lovelyn in the course of her ten (10)year disappearance; and Remar is
aware the true cause of Lovelyn 's disappearance: that she is now cohabiting with another man and will
not be going home because of shame.
9. The Court cannot uphold the issuance of a declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of
remarriage where there appears to be no well-founded belief of the absentee spouse's death, but only
the likelihood that the absentee spouse does not want to be found.
| Page 3 of 3
