Procedural lapse

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 Tino and Tina.

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

After the couple spent only a night together and had intimate relationship only once, Tina told Tino 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. Tina 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, Tina and her family flew to Seattle USA.

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

With no contact for more than 13 years and believing that Tina had died, Tino filed a verified petition on October 1, 2001 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of her presumptive death within the contemplation of Article 41 of the Family Code allowing him to institute a summary proceeding when his spouse Tina has been absent for four consecutive years and he has a well founded belief that Tina was already dead so as to enable him to contract a subsequent marriage if he wants to.

At the initial hearing of the case, nobody entered any opposition. So Tino presented his evidence ex-parte and testified in court about the details of his search for Tina. He recounted the efforts he made to find her. He said he inquired from Tina’s uncle in Las Piñas and learned that even Tina’s relatives were unaware of her whereabouts. He said he also solicited the assistance of his friend in the Texas Air Force who went over the Seattle phone directory for Tina’s name and inquired about her from the registrar’s office in Seattle, but both efforts proved to be in vain. Finally he said he also sought the aid of his parents then already living in L.A., and his aunt in Seattle. But like Tina’s uncle in Las Piñas their attempts to find Tina proved futile.

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

This prompted the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for the Republic of the Philippines to file a Notice of Appeal. The OSG discounted Tino’s testimony on the steps he took to find Tina as hearsay because none of the persons who purportedly helped in his search testified in court. The OSG belittled the failure to object to the admissibility of Tino’s testimony as against the state policy of preserving marital unions as provided in the Constitution. 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 the correction of clerical errors, the so called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which 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). Tino got his wish by TKO.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]