A soldier’s life is one fraught with danger, uncertainty, and sacrifices. Fortunate are those who successfully and happily return after a mission while others are welcomed by their loved ones in coffins draped with the Philippine flag.
Worst are those who have not returned from their mission and their whereabouts unknown. Absent their bodies and any information on their whereabouts, these soldiers’ families file death benefit claims with the appropriate offices but are declined. In the past, these families file petitions for presumptive deaths of their loved ones. But, this is already a thing of the past.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Tadeo-Matias v. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 230751, April 15, 2018), has ruled that a petition whose sole objective is to have a person declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code is not regarded as a valid suit and no court has any authority to take cognizance of the same. This is because the rules on presumptive death enshrined under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code merely express rules of evidence. In other words, a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 390 or 391 of the Civil Code is not a valid action in this jurisdiction.
Thus, the Supreme Court has outlined the rules in order that the family members may claim the death benefits of a soldier who set out for service but never came back.
First, the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) can decide claims of death benefits of a missing soldier without requiring the claimant to first produce a court declaration of the presumptive death of such soldiers. In fact, in such claims, the PVAO and the AFP can make their own determination on the basis of evidence presented by the claimant, whether the presumption of death under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code may be applied or not.
Since the presumption of death arises by operation of law and in order to avail of the presumption, the claimant need only present before the PVAO or the appropriate office of the AFP, as the case may be, any evidence which shows that the concerned soldier had been missing for such number of years and/or under the circumstances prescribed under the Civil Code.
Second, it is the PVAO or the AFP which will determine the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by the claimant to establish the requisite factual conditions specified under Articles 390 or 391 of the Civil Code in order for the presumption of death to arise.
Third, if the PVAO or the AFP determines that the evidence submitted by the claimant is not sufficient to invoke the presumption of death under the Civil Code and denies the latter’s claim by reason thereof, the claimant may file an appeal with the Office of the President.
Finally, if the Office of the President denies the appeal, the claimant may next seek recourse via a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Should such recourse still fail, the claimant may file an appeal by certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Juris Supellectilem 