Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Matias Vs RP

    Uploaded by

    GenerousdeGuzman
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred in declaring Wilfredo Matias presumptively dead based on Article 41 of the Civil Code. Article 41 only applies when seeking to remarry after a spouse's absence, which was not the petitioner's intent. The petitioner sought the declaration solely to claim benefits, so the applicable provisions were Articles 390 and 391, which provide general presumptions of death for civil purposes after periods of absence. The CA properly set aside the RTC decision for applying the wrong article.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Matias Vs RP

    Uploaded by

    GenerousdeGuzman
    12 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred in declaring Wilfredo Matias presumptively dead based on Article 41 of the Civil Code. Article 41 only applies when seeking to remarry after a spouse's absence, which was not the petitioner's intent. The petitioner sought the declaration solely to claim benefits, so the applicable provisions were Articles 390 and 391, which provide general presumptions of death for civil purposes after periods of absence. The CA properly set aside the RTC decision for applying the wrong article.

    Original Title

    Matias vs RP

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred in declaring Wilfredo Matias presumptively dead based on Article 41 of the Civil Code. Article 41 only applies when seeking to remarry after a spouse's absence, which was not the petitioner's intent. The petitioner sought the declaration solely to claim benefits, so the applicable provisions were Articles 390 and 391, which provide general presumptions of death for civil purposes after periods of absence. The CA properly set aside the RTC decision for applying the wrong article.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views2 pages

    Matias Vs RP

    Uploaded by

    GenerousdeGuzman
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC erred in declaring Wilfredo Matias presumptively dead based on Article 41 of the Civil Code. Article 41 only applies when seeking to remarry after a spouse's absence, which was not the petitioner's intent. The petitioner sought the declaration solely to claim benefits, so the applicable provisions were Articles 390 and 391, which provide general presumptions of death for civil purposes after periods of absence. The CA properly set aside the RTC decision for applying the wrong article.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ESTRELLITA TADEO-MATIAS, 

    Petitioner
    vs
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

    G.R. No. 230751 April 25, 2018

    J. Velasco Jr.

    Facts:

    April 10, 2012- Estrellita filed before the RTC a petition for declaration of presumptive death of her husband Wilfredo Matias where
    she alleged, among others, that

    (1) they were married on January 7, 1968,


    (2) Wlifredo is a member of the Philippine Constabulary assigned in Araya, Pampanga since August 1967,
    (3) Wlifredo never came back from his tour of duty in Arayat, Pampanga since 1979 and he never made contact or
    communicated with Estrellita nor to his relatives
    (4) That according to the service record of Wilfredo issued by the National Police Commission, he was already declared
    missing since 1979.

    Estrellita constantly pestered the Philippine Constabulary for any news regarding her husband but they had no answer, all they
    know is he was assigned to a place frequented by the New People’s Army.

    Estrellita never gave up hope but the times had been tough on her especially with a meager source of income coupled with her
    age, it is now necessary for her to request for the benefits that rightfully belong to her in order to survive.

    In order to claim such benefits, a proof of death or at least a declaration of presumptive death by the Honorable Court was
    required. Hence, she filed the petition not for any other purposes but solely to claim the benefits due her.

    The RTC granted the petition and declared Wilfredo Matias as absent or presumptively dead under Art 41 of the FC of the
    Philippines for purposes of claiming financial benefits due to him as former military officer.

    The Republic questioned this decision via certiorari. The CA rendered a decision granting the certiorari and setting aside the
    decision of the RTC. The CA held that the RTC erred when it declared Wilfredo presumptively dead on the basis of Art 41 such
    that the purpose of the petition was not to remarry. If anything, the petition was invoking the presumption of death established
    under Art 390 and 391 of the Civil Code.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the RTC erred in declaring Wilfredo Matias presumptively dead on the basis of Art 41 of the Civil Code.

    RULING:

    Yes.

    Art 41 provides that 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 a
    danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Art 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only 2 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.

    It can be recalled that the RTC, in the fallo of its January 15, 2012 Decision, granted the petitioner’s petition by declaring
    Wilfredo presumptively dead “under Article 41 of the FC.” By doing so, the RTC gave the impression that the petition for the
    declaration of presumptive death filed by petitioner was likewise filed pursuant to Article 41 of the FC. This is wrong. The
    petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by petitioner is not an action that would have warranted the application of
    Article 41 of the FC because petitioner was not seeking to remarry. A reading of Article 41 of the FC shows that the
    presumption of death established therein is only applicable for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage under
    the said law.

    Petitioner was forthright that she was not seeking the declaration of the presumptive death of Wilfredo as a prerequisite for
    remarriage. In her petition for the declaration of presumptive death, petitioner categorically stated that the same was filed “not
    for any other purpose but solely to claim for the benefit under P.D. No. 1638 as amended.” Given that her petition for the
    declaration of presumptive death was not filed for the purpose of remarriage, petitioner was clearly relying on the presumption
    of death under either Article 390 or Article 391 of the Civil Code as the basis of her petition. Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil
    Code express the general rule regarding presumptions of death for any civil purpose, to wit: 

    Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead
    for all purposes, except for those of succession. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his
    succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years
    shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.

    Art. 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs:

    (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four
    years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;

    (2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years;

    (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years.

    You might also like