Thursday, October 12, 2017


REPUBLIC v. EDNA ORCELINO-VILLANUEVA                                     GR No. 210929, Jul 29, 2015


Edna worked as a domestic helper in Singapore in 1992 while her husband worked as a mechanic in Valencia, Bukidnon. The two got married on December 21, 1978, in Iligan City. While she was in Singapore(1993) , her children informed her that her husband left their home without telling them his whereabouts. Due to this news, she was prompted to go back to the Philippines to look and find his husband. Edna searched and made inquiries about her husband thru their common friends, and parents-in-law in Iligan and Valencia City and even went far as to his birthplace in Negros Oriental.

15 years later she filed to the RTC a petition to declare Romeo presumptively dead under Article 41 of the Family Code. During the trial, she was presented as the lone witness.

RTC grants her petition.

The OSG thru a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court questioned the decision of the RTC on the ground that the conclusions reached by the RTC were in direct opposition to established jurisprudence, as ruled by the Court in Republic v. Nolasco, and U.S. v. Biasbas.

CA dismissed the OSG’s petition.


Whether or not the strict standard approach were followed by Edna before she filed a petition for declaration of presumptive death of her husband.


NO. Edna claimed that she made diligent search and inquiries to find her husband but it was found out that it was all consisted of bare assertions without any corroborative evidence on record. Edna did not present additional witnesses (her children, their common friends, parents-in-law) but herself alone. There was not even any attempt to seek the aid of the authorities at the time her husband disappeared.

Therefore, The petition of respondent Edna Orcelino-Villanueva to have her husband declared presumptively dead is DENIED.

No comments:

Post a Comment