Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83833:58366&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:36:45+00:00

Document:
The proper remedy for a judicial declaration of presumptive death obtained by extrinsic fraud is an action to annul the judgment. An affidavit of reappearance is not the proper remedy when the person declared presumptively dead has never been absent.
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Celerina J. Santos, assailing the Court of Appeals' resolutions dated November 28, 2008 and March 5, 2009. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for the annulment of the trial court's judgment declaring her presumptively dead.
The issue for resolution is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Celerina's petition for annulment of judgment for being a wrong remedy for a fraudulently obtained judgment declaring presumptive death.
In Ricardo's comment,35 he argued that a petition for annulment of judgment is not the proper remedy because it cannot be availed when there are other remedies available. Celerina could always file an affidavit of reappearance to terminate the subsequent marriage. Ricardo iterated the Court of Appeals' ruling that the remedy afforded to Celerina under Article 42 of the Family Code is the appropriate remedy.
These are allegations of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Celerina alleged in her petition with the Court of Appeals sufficient ground/s for annulment of judgment.
There was also no other sufficient remedy available to Celerina at the time of her discovery of the fraud perpetrated on her.
The choice of remedy is important because remedies carry with them certain admissions, presumptions, and conditions.
Article 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio.
In other words, the Family Code provides the presumptively dead spouse with the remedy of terminating the subsequent marriage by mere reappearance.
The filing of an affidavit of reappearance is an admission on the part of the first spouse that his or her marriage to the present spouse was terminated when he or she was declared absent or presumptively dead.
Moreover, a close reading of the entire Article 42 reveals that the termination of the subsequent marriage by reappearance is subject to several conditions: (1) the non-existence of a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio; (2) recording in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage of the sworn statement of fact and circumstances of reappearance; (3) due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage of the fact of reappearance; and (4) the fact of reappearance must either be undisputed or judicially determined.
The existence of these conditions means that reappearance does not always immediately cause the subsequent marriage's termination. Reappearance of the absent or presumptively dead spouse will cause the termination of the subsequent marriage only when all the conditions enumerated in the Family Code are present.
Hence, the subsequent marriage may still subsist despite the absent or presumptively dead spouse's reappearance (1) if the first marriage has already been annulled or has been declared a nullity; (2) if the sworn statement of the reappearance is not recorded in the civil registry of the subsequent spouses' residence; (3) if there is no notice to the subsequent spouses; or (4) if the fact of reappearance is disputed in the proper courts of law, and no judgment is yet rendered confirming, such fact of reappearance.
The choice of the proper remedy is also important for purposes of determining the status of the second marriage and the liabilities of the spouse who, in bad faith, claimed that the other spouse was absent.
A subsequent marriage contracted in bad faith, even if it was contracted after a court declaration of presumptive death, lacks the requirement of a well-founded belief56 that the spouse is already dead. The first marriage will not be considered as. validly terminated. Marriages contracted prior to the valid termination of a subsisting marriage are generally considered bigamous and void.57 Only a subsequent marriage contracted in good faith is protected by law.
Celerina does not admit to have been absent. She also seeks not merely the termination of the subsequent marriage but also the nullification of its effects. She contends that reappearance is not a sufficient remedy because it will only terminate the subsequent marriage but not nullify the effects of the declaration of her presumptive death and the subsequent marriage.
It is true that in most cases, an action to declare the nullity of the subsequent marriage may nullify the effects of the subsequent marriage, specifically, in relation to the status of children and the prospect of prosecuting a respondent for bigamy.
However, "a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages may be filed solely by the husband or wife."64 This means that even if Celerina is a real party in interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the outcome of an action to nullify the second marriage,65 this remedy is not available to her.
Therefore, for the purpose of not only terminating the subsequent marriage but also of nullifying the effects of the declaration of presumptive death and the subsequent marriage, mere filing of an affidavit of reappearance would not suffice. Celerina's choice to file an action for annulment of judgment will, therefore, lie.
WHEREFORE, the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for determination of the existence of extrinsic fraud, grounds for nullity/annulment of the first marriage, and the merits of the petition.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe,* JJ., concur.
* Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1829 dated October 8, 2014.
1Rollo, pp. 23, 27-29, 35-36.
16 Id. at 40, 42.
36 RULES OF COURT, Rule 47, Sec. 1.
37 RULES OF COURT, Rule 47, Sec. 2.
38Stilianopulos v. City of Legaspi, 374 Phil. 879 (1999) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
46 RULES OF COURT, Rule 47, Sec. 3.
47 Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during 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 has 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.
48See also A. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES: COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE, vol. 1, 282 (2004).
51 520 Phil. 249 (2006) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
52 The applicable law in Social Security System v. Vda. de Bailon was the Civil Code, although there was a short discussion on the relevant Family Code provisions.
54 Id., citing A. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES: COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE, vol. 1, 285-286 (1999); See also A. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES: COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE, vol. 1, 285-286 (2004).
56 FAMILY CODE, art. 41.
57 FAMILY CODE, art. 41.
58 FAMILY CODE, Art. 35(4) and 41; Rev. Pen. Code, art. 349.
59 See A. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES: COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE, vol. 1, 283 (2004).
60 520 Phil. 249, 264 (2006) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division], citing A. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES: COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE, vol. 1, 282 (1999); See also A. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES: COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE vol. 1, 284 (2004).
61 A. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE: OF THE PHILIPPINES: COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE, vol. 1, 284 (2004).
(1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered legitimate, and their custody and support in case of dispute shall be decided by the court in a proper proceeding. . .
63Manuel v. People, 512 Phil. 818, 833-835, 836-837 (2005) (Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.
The subsequent marriage in this case took place in 2008.

References: v. 
 Art. 41
 v. 
 art. 41
 art. 41
 Art. 35
 art. 349
 v.