Estrelitta Tadeo-Matias Vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 230751. April 25, 2018

Estrelitta Tadeo-Matias Vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 230751. April 25, 2018

Velasco Jr.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64080

## Issues

On April 10, 2012, petitioner Estrellita Tadeo-Matias filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her husband, Wilfredo N. Matias (Wilfredo).

1. [Petitioner] is of legal age, married to [Wilfredo], Filipino and curr[e]ntly a resident of 106 Molave street, Zone B, San Miguel, Tarlac City;
2. [Wilfredo] is of legal age, a member of the Philippine Constabulary and was assigned in Arayat, Pampanga since August 24, 1967[;]
3. The [petitioner and [Wilfredo] entered into a lawful marriage on January 7, 1968 in Imbo, Anda, Pangasinan x x x;
4. After the solemnization of their marriage vows, the couple put up their conjugal home at 106 Molave street, Zone B, San Miguel, Tarlac City;
5. [Wilfredo] continued to serve the Philippines and on September 15, 1979, he set out from their conjugal home to again serve as a member of the Philippine Constabulary;
6. [Wilfredo] never came back from his tour of duty in Arayat, Pampanga since 1979 and he never made contact or communicated with the [p]etitioner nor to his relatives;
7. That according to the service record of [Wilfredo] issued by the National Police Commission, [Wilfredo] was already declared missing since 1979 x x x;
8. Petitioner constantly pestered the then Philippine Constabulary for any news regarding [her] beloved husband [Wilfredo], but the Philippine Constabulary had no answer to his whereabouts, [neither] did they have any news of him going AWOL, all they know was he was assigned to a place frequented by the New People's Army;
9. [W]eeks became years and years became decades, but the [p]etitioner never gave up hope, and after more than three (3) decades of waiting, the [petitioner is still hopeful, but the times had been tough on her, specially 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;
10. [T]hat one of the requirements to attain the claim of benefits is for a proof of death or at least a declaration of presumptive death by the Honorable Court;
11. That this petition is being filed not for any other purpose but solely to claim for the benefit under P.D. No. 1638 as amended.

RTC Erred in Declaring the Presumptive Death of Wilfredo under Article 41 of the FC; Petitioner's Petition for the Declaration of Presumptive Death Is Not Based on Article 41 of the FC, but on the Civil Code

* 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.

Petitioner's Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death Ought to Have Been Dismissed; A Petition Whose Sole Objective is to Declare a Person Presumptively Dead Under the Civil Code, Like that Filed by the Petitioner Before the RTC, Is Not a Viable Suit in Our Jurisdiction

* Independently of such an action or special proceeding, the presumption of death cannot be invoked, nor can it be made the subject of an action or special proceeding. In this case, there is no right to be enforced nor is there a remedy prayed for by the petitioner against her absent husband.
* The petition is for a declaration that the petitioner's husband is presumptively dead. But this declaration, even if judicially made, would not improve the petitioner's situation, because such a presumption is already established by law. A judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if final and executory, would still be a prima facie presumption only. It is still disputable. It is for that reason that it cannot be the subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration, if it is the only question or matter involved in a case, or upon which a competent court has to pass.

What the Court finds deeply disconcerting, however, is the possibility that such misconception may have been peddled by no less than the PVAO and the AFP themselves; that such agencies, as a matter of practice, had been requiring claimants, such as the petitioner, to first secure a court declaration of presumptive death before processing the death benefits of a missing serviceman.
In view of the foregoing circumstance, the Court deems it necessary to issue the following guidelines—culled from relevant law and jurisprudential pronouncements—to aid the public, PVAO and the AFP in making or dealing with claims of death benefits which are similar to that of the petitioner:

1. **The PVAO and the AFP can decide claims of death benefits of a missing**

 soldier without requiring the claimant to first produce a court
declaration of the presumptive death of such soldier. **In such**
claims, the PVAO and the AFP can make their own determination, on the
basis of evidence presented by the claimant, whether the presumption of
death under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code may be applied or
not. It must be stressed that the presumption of death under Articles
390 and 391 of the Civil Code arises by operation of law, *without need of a court declaration*, once the factual conditions mentioned in the said articles are established.
 Hence, requiring the claimant to further secure a court declaration in
order to establish the presumptive death of a missing soldier is not
proper and contravenes established jurisprudence on the matter.

1. In order to avail of the presumption, therefore, the claimant need only present before the PVAO or the appropriate office of the AFP, as the case may be, any "evidence" which shows that the concerned soldier had been missing for such number of years and/or under the circumstances prescribed under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code. Obviously, the "evidence" referred to here excludes a court declaration of presumptive death.
2. In order to avail of the presumption, therefore, the claimant need only present before the PVAO or the appropriate office of the AFP, as the case may be, any "evidence" which shows that the concerned soldier had been missing for such number of years and/or under the circumstances prescribed under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code. Obviously, the "evidence" referred to here excludes a court declaration of presumptive death.
3. The PVAO or the AFP, as the case may be, may then weigh the evidence submitted by the claimant and determine their sufficiency to establish the requisite factual conditions specified under Article 390 or 391 of the Civil Code in order for the presumption of death to arise. If the PVAO or the AFP determines that the evidence submitted by the claimant is sufficient, they should not hesitate to apply the presumption of death and pay the latter's claim.
4. If the PVAO or the AFP determines that the evidence submitted by the claimant is not sufficient to invoke the presumption of death under the Civil Code and denies the latter's claim by reason thereof, the claimant may file an appeal with the Office of the President (OP) pursuant to the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

If the OP denies the appeal, the claimant may next seek recourse via a petition for review with the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of the Court. And finally, should such recourse still fail, the claimant may file an appeal by certiorari with the Supreme Court.

While we are constrained by case law to deny the instant petition, the Court is hopeful that, by the foregoing guidelines, the unfortunate experience of the petitioner would no longer be replicated in the future.

## Decisions

**WHEREFORE**, the instant appeal is **DENIED**. The Decision dated November 28, 2016 and Resolution dated March 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 129467 are **AFFIRMED**.
 The Court declares that a judicial decision of a court of law that a
person is presumptively dead is not a requirement before the Philippine
Veterans' Affairs Office or the Armed Forces of the Philippines can
grant and pay the benefits under Presidential Decree No. 1638.
Let
 a copy of this decision be served to the Philippine Veterans' Affairs
Office and the Armed Forces of the Philippines for their consideration.