Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Republic v. Nolasco (1993)


Republic v. Nolasco
March 17, 1993
Ponente: Justice Feliciano

PARTIES:
- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
- Respondent: Gregorio Nolasco

FACTS:
·       Nolasco was a seaman and had met Jane Monica Parker in a bar in England during one of his ship’s ports calls.
·       Parker lived with Nolasco on his ship for 6 months until they returned to Nolasco’s hometown of San Jose, Antique on January 15, 1982 à Married in Catholic rites in San Jose.
·       During the marriage Nolasco was able to secure another employment contract as a seaman and left Parker to his parents in San Jose à January 1983 Nolasco’s mother informed him that Parker had given birth to a son, and informed him that Parker had left Antique.
·       November 1983 – Nolasco arrived in Antique.
·       August 5, 1988- Gregorio Nolasco filed a petition for declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker (RTC Antique) invoking Article 41 of the Family Code.
·       Nolasco prayed that his wife be declared presumptively dear or in alternative, that the marriage be declared null and void.
·       Nolasco’s testimony:
-        His efforts to look for Parker whenever his ship docked in England proved fruitless; letters sent to Parker’s house in Liverpool and the bar where she previously worked were returned to him.
-        Also inquired from among friends but they too had no news of Parker.
-        Stated that he had no other knowledge regarding Parker’s family background and Parker refused to give him such information even after they were married.
-        Stated that he did not report the matter of Parker’s disappearance to the Philippine government authorities.
-        Alicia Nolasco (mother) testified that Parker never got used to the rural way of life in San Jose.
-        Dec. 22, 1982 – Parker left for England after being dissuaded by Alicia Nolasco and after giving birth to her son.
·       October 12, 1988 – RTC grated Nolasco’s petition.
·       Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC à Stating that Nolasco had sufficiently established a basis to form a belief that his absent spouse had already died.
·       The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition through the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique, the Republic argued:
1. Nolasco did not possess a “well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.”
2. Nolasco’s attempt to have his marriage annulled in the same proceeding was a “cunning attempt” to circumvent the law on marriage.

ISSUE: W/N Nolasco had a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.

HOLDING:
·       No.
·       Court considers that the investigation allegedly conducted by Nolasco is too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or well-founded belief that she was already dead.
·       The degree of diligence required in searching for a missing spouse was not met.
·       Nolasco did not seek the help of local authorities or of the British Embassy; instead, he secured another contract and went to London to find her BUT Nolasco’s testimony showed that he confused London for Liverpool.
·       CA: The apparent error in naming of places of destination does not appear to be fatal.
·       Not well taken by the court. London and Liverpool are around 350 kilometers apart.
·       Neither can the Court accept Nolasco’s claim that he had inquired from their friends of her whereabouts à did not identify the names of those friends in his testimony.
·       Nolasco failed to explain the delay of 9 months from January 1983 (receipt of the letter) to November 1983 when he finally arrived to San Jose.
·       Did not explain why he did not try to get help from authorities in London and Liverpool in his effort to find his wife.


DOCTRINE: Marriage as a special contract.
- Spouses should not be allowed, by the simple expedient of agreeing to circumvent the policy of the laws on marriage.
- Since Nolasco failed to satisfy the clear requirements of the law, his petition for judicial declaration of presumptive death must be denied.

JUDGMENT: RTC and CA decision is REVERSED, both are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Blas v. Santos (1961)

Blas v. Santos (1961) Topic: Future Inheritance, except when authorized by law (Art. 1347) PARTIES : ·        Peti...