THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199620. April 19, 2017.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. NENITA BITANTES SIMON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued aResolution datedApril 19, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199620 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Nenita Bitantes Simon). — For resolution is the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated November 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 01460, which affirmed the Order 3 dated October 9, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, Branch 3, in Sp. Proc. Case No. FC-17, granting respondent Nenita Bitantes Simon's (Nenita) petition for declaration of presumptive death of her husband, Orlando M. Simon (Orlando).
Antecedent Facts
On April 2, 2002, Orlando and Nenita were married before Executive Judge Eugenio R. Valles of the RTC of Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, Branch 3. Prior to their marriage, the couple already had a son named Mike Rodrigo Bitantes Simon. 4
Sometime in May 2002, however, Orlando went to Indonesia via the "southern back door" to look for a job. From the time Orlando left, Nenita received only one text message from the former to inform her that he had not yet found work and that his life was in constant danger because he was being hunted as an illegal alien in Indonesia. 5
Considering that Nenita had not heard from Orlando since then, and that after she had exerted all diligent efforts within her means to find Orlando the same still proved to be futile, she filed a Petition for the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Absentee Spouse 6 before the RTC. The same was docketed as Sp. Proc. No. FC-17. 7
After trial, the RTC issued its Order 8 dated October 9, 2006 wherein it was convinced that Nenita was able to prove the allegations of the petition and accordingly granted the same and declared Orlando presumptively dead. The dispositive portion of the RTC order reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines, [ORLANDO] is hereby declared presumptively dead without prejudice to the reappearance of the absentee spouse.
SO ORDERED. 9
Aggrieved, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to assail the RTC's Order dated October 9, 2006 before the CA. The OSG averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared Orlando presumptively dead despite lack of evidence to show that Nenita's belief of such fact was well-founded. 10
On November 29, 2011, the CA issued its Decision 11 dismissing the petition after finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to jurisdictional error on the part of the RTC.
The CA held that the issue raised by the OSG as to the RTC's failure to appreciate Nenita's belief that Orlando was dead was neither reasonable nor well-founded is not within the ambit of certiorari under Rule 65. It held that certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. 12
Undaunted, the OSG filed the instant petition for review under Rule 45 based on the following grounds: (i) the CA erred when it held that the proper remedy should have been to appeal the RTC decision instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; and (ii) there is no sufficient evidence to support Nenita's claim of a "well-founded belief" that Orlando is probably dead. CAIHTE
Ruling of the Court
CA found no grave abuse of
Contrary to the OSG's allegation, the CA dismissed the petition not on the ground that the OSG availed of the wrong remedy of certiorari but because it found that there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to jurisdictional error on the part of the RTC.
As correctly observed by the CA, a petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. In the present case, however, the OSG failed to prove the same. The CA in part states:
Not every error is correctible by certiorari; only jurisdictional errors are subject to the extraordinary writ. In the case at bench, the Court discerns no grave abuse of discretion amounting to jurisdictional errors on the part of the respondent court. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 13
The Court will not disturb factual
Time and again, the Court held that only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 14 The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to errors of law. Moreover, where the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court, such findings generally become conclusive and binding upon the Court. 15
Here, the issue raised by the OSG as to the sufficiency of evidence to support Nenita's claim of a "well-founded belief" that Orlando is probably dead is a question of fact rather than of law. Clearly, the same is not within the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and that the OSG failed to prove that the instant case falls under any of the exception provided by the rules.
At any rate, the Court finds that the RTC properly appreciated the evidence presented during trial in declaring Orlando as presumptively dead based on the testimony of his wife, Nenita. The RTC decision in part provides:
The testimony of [Nenita] is hereby summarized as follows: that on April 2, 2002 she got married with [Orlando] before RTC Executive Judge Eugenio R. Valles in Nabunturan, Compostella Valley; that before their marriage, they begot a child named Mike Rodrigo Bitantes Simon who was born on February 21, 2001; that sometime in May 2002, her husband left their conjugal home and went to Indonesia via the southern back door as an illegal alien looking for job opportunities; that her husband had once sent a text message to her informing her that he had no work yet and that his life was in constant danger for being hunted as an illegal alien in Indonesia; that since then up to the present, nothing more has been heard of the whereabouts of her husband; that she even inquired from the parents, relatives and friends of her husband if they know the whereabouts of her husband, but they do not know also the whereabouts of her husband; that she has already exerted all diligent efforts within which [sic] her means to find/locate her husband but all of them proved futile; that with the futility of all such diligent efforts to find and locate her husband and considering that more than four (4) years have already lapsed, she has now arrived at well-founded belief that her husband was already dead; that in the meantime, she has to go on living as a normal woman who has a right to seek the wholesome companionship of a man who also could assume the role of a father to her child; that she has found a Taiwanese who is willing to be legally married with her and also willing to assume the role of a father to her child. 16
In fine, the OSG failed to present any matter that would warrant the reversal or modification of the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. aScITE
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 01460 is hereby AFFIRMED." (Jardeleza,J., no part, in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Mendoza,J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated January 5, 2015.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-38.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with Associate Justices Abraham B. Borreta and Melchor Q. Sadang concurring; id. at 42-46.
3. Rendered by Executive Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr.; id. at 51-52.
4.Id. at 42-43.
5.Id. at 43.
6.Id. at 47-50.
7.Id. at 42-43.
8.Id. at 51-52.
9.Id. at 52.
10.Id. at 44.
11.Id. at 42-46.
12.Id. at 45.
13.Id. at 44-45.
14.Heirs of Pacencia Racaza v. Spouses Abay-Abay, 687 Phil. 584, 590 (2012).
15.Republic of the Philippines v. Casimiro, 524 Phil. 796, 820 (2006), citing Spouses Francisco v. CA, 449 Phil. 632, 647 (2003).
16.Rollo, pp. 51-52.