VALDEZ v.

REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 180863
September 8, 2009

FACTS:
 Petitioner is Angelita Valdez; respondent is Republic of the Philippines
 Valdez married Sofio Polboroso on January 11, 1971 in Pateros and had one child. During the period of
their marriage, they argued constantly because Sofio was unemployed.
 March 1972: Sofio left their conjugal dwelling. Valdez and their child waited for him to return until May 1972,
when she decided to go back to her parent’s home in Tarlac. 3 years passed without any word from Sofio
until he showed up at Tarlac on October 1975. They agreed to separate and executed a document to that
effect. After that, she never saw Sofio again and didn’t have any more knowledge as to his whereabouts and
if he was still alive.
 June 20 1985: Valdez married Virgilio Reyes, who afterwards applied for naturalization. He was denied
because Valdez’ prior marriage was still subsisting so she filed a petition for presumptive death of Sofio
before the RTC of Tarlac
 Tarlac RTC: denied the petition, stating that Valdez was not able to prove the well-grounded belief that her
husband Sofio was dead. Under Article 41, the present spouse is burdened to show that the other spouse
has been absent and that there is a well-founded belief that said spouse may be dead. Valdez has admitted
that since their separation, she
 Valdez: The Family Code does not apply since her marriages were celebrated before the Family Code took
effect; any vested right she had will be impaired

ISSUE
1. Whether or not presumptive death under the Family Code can be granted.

RULING: NO.
- Procedural issue: a party may apply directly to the Court on a question of law (doubt on what law should
apply in certain facts).
- RTC erred in its ruling that Article 41 of the Family Code should apply because the marriages were
celebrated before the Family Code, thus the Civil Code will apply.
- Article 83 of the Civil Code: A subsequent marriage of a person during the lifetime of his spouse will be void,
unless the first marriage was annulled or dissolved, or the first spouse had been absent for 7 consecutive
years at the time of the marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or if
the absentee, being absent for 7 years, is generally presumed to be dead at the time the present spouse
contracted the subsequent marriage, or absentee is presumed dead under Articles 390 and 391
- Article 390: After the absence of 7 years and it is unknown whether the absentee is alive, he shall be
presumed dead for all purposes, except for succession (Succession – 10 years; if absentee is above 75
years old when he disappeared – 5 years)
- Interpretation of the Court: No need for judicial declaration of presumption of death for civil marriage law, but
only for the purpose of succession. In civil marriage law, if the spouse is absent for 7 consecutive years at
the time of the marriage and there was no news of him being alive, then the spouse is presumed dead.
- No need for court declaration on Sofio, because he is presumed dead starting October 1982 (based on the
Civil Code). Thus, there is no impediment to Valdez’ capacity to marry Virgilio. There is no need also for the
“well-founded belief” under the Family Code because it does not apply. Article 256 of the Family Code
states that the Code has retroactive effect insofar as it does not impair vested or acquired rights under the
Civil Code.

The Petition is denied because Sofio is presumed dead by operation of law under the Civil Code. Valdez is
capacitated to marry Virgilio at the time the marriage was celebrated in 1985.