In Re: Reyes ISSUE/S: Whether Roberto L. Reyes be declared in absentia? No.

G.R. Number: Date: Ponente:

L-32026 January 16, 1986 Patajo J. RULING: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered
TOPIC: AFFIRMING the order of the lower Court dismissing the petition to declare Roberto
In Absentia L. Reyes an absentee. With costs against petitioner-appellant.

PETITIONER RESPONDENT RATIO:

RE: PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF HON, JOSE P. ALEJANDRO, in his 1. Provisions of the New Civil Code are concerned with absence only with
ABSENCE OF ROBERTO L. REYES. capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of reference to its effects on property.
ERLINDA REYNOSO REYES Cavite, Branch II, Cavite City, 2. Article 384 of the New Civil Code relied upon by herein petitioner refers to
the second period or stage of absence, and specifically indicates the precise
FACTS: moment when the same may begin:
1. Erlinda Reynoso prayed for the declaration of the absence of her husband a. After the lapse of two (2) years without any news about the absentee
Roberto L. Reyes alleging that: or since the receipt of the last news, and
a. Her husband had been absent from their conjugal dwelling since b. Five (5) years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the
April 1962. administration of his property, his absence may be declared by the
b. Since then had not been heard from and his whereabouts unknown. Court.
c. That her husband left no will nor any property in his name nor any 3. The primordial purpose of this declaration is to provide for an administrator
debts. of the property of the absentee. It cannot be said that because of the comma
2. Evidence presented by petitioner in support of her petition established that (,) between the words 'news' and 'and', the two-year period mentioned in the
a. She and Roberto L. Reyes were married on March 20, 1960; first part of the law has no reference to or bearing on the property of the
b. That sometime in April 1962 her husband left the conjugal home absentee.
due to some misunderstanding over personal matters; 4. Manresa states that the only reason for the different periods is because in one
c. Since then petitioner has not received any news about the case (2 years) the absentee has not left a person in charge of the
whereabouts of her husband; administration of his property, and in the other case (5 years) the absentee has
d. They have not acquired any properties during their marriage and that provided for his absence by appointing an administrator of his property
they have no outstanding obligation in favor of anyone; dispensing in a way the giving of news about himself.
e. That her only purpose in filing the petition is to establish the absence 5. Moreover, it is not enough that a person is declared an absentee. The law (see
of her husband, invoking the provisions of Rule 107 of the New Articles 381, 382 and 383) requires the judge to appoint a representative for
Rules of Court and Article 384 of the Civil Code. the absentee precisely to safeguard the property or interest of the latter. It is
3. Court a quo dismissed the petition on the ground that since Roberto L. Reyes thus imperative that the declaration of absence be for a specific purpose, and
left no properties there was no necessity to declare him judicially an absentee. that purpose can be no other than the protection of the interest or property of
It said: the absentee. Castan, in his commentary, emphatically states that there must
a. A perusal of Rule 107 of the Rules of Court on absentees reveals be an immediate necessity for the representation of the absentee in some
that it is based on the provisions of Title XIV of the New Civil Code specific urgent matters.
on absence. And the reason and purpose of the provisions of the New 6. The same observation and commentary can be said of the corresponding
Civil Code on absence (Arts. 381 to 396) are: complimenting provisions of Rule 107 of the Rules of Court, particularly
i. The interest of the person himself who has disappeared; Sections 6 and 7 thereof which make it mandatory upon the Court to appoint
ii. The rights of third parties against the absentee, especially a representative, trustee or administrator who shall safeguard the rights and
those who have rights which would depend upon the death interest of the absentee.
of the absentee; and 7. Considering that neither the petition alleges, nor the evidence shows, that
iii. The general interest of society which may require that Roberto L. Reyes has any rights, interest or property in the Philippines, there
property does not remain abandoned without someone is no point in judicially declaring him an absentee.
representing it and without an owner (Civil Code by 8. We affirm the order of the lower Court dismissing the petition. As this Court
Francisco, Vol. 2, pp. 930- 931, 1953 Ed.). said in Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 197:
 a. ... For the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to
have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee. The
declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of
the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the
necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the
absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law
only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven
consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse
present does not know his or her former spouse to he living, that
such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse
present so believes at the time of the celebration of the marriage
9. The need to have a person judicially declared an absentee is when he has
properties which have to be taken cared of or administered by a representative
appointed by the Court (Article 384, Civil Code); the spouse of the absentee
is asking for separation of property (Article 191, Civil Code) or his wife is
asking the Court that the administration of an classes of property in the
marriage be transferred to her (Article 196, Civil Code).