Short answer. Under Civil Code Article 390, a missing person is presumed dead for succession purposes after ten years of absence. If the person disappeared after age 75, five years of absence is enough. The ordinary seven-year presumption applies to other civil matters but not to opening an estate.
What the law says
After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
Civil Code, Article 390 — Presumption of Death by Absence. Read the full provision →
Two different periods under Article 390
Article 390 sets different periods depending on the purpose. For general civil purposes — property management, representation, civil status — seven years of unexplained absence is enough for the law to presume death. But for succession — opening and distributing the estate — the period is longer: ten years. The legislature imposed a stricter standard for inheritance because the stakes are higher: once assets are distributed to heirs, reversing that distribution if the person turns up alive is far more complicated. If the missing person disappeared after reaching age 75, the succession period is shortened to five years.
What 'opening the succession' requires in practice
Meeting the statutory period is a threshold, not a conclusion. To actually distribute the estate, the heirs must go through estate proceedings — either judicial settlement before a court or extrajudicial settlement where the law permits it. These proceedings require documentation of the absence and, typically, a formal declaration. The ten-year or five-year period is when the legal clock allows the process to begin; it does not mean that heirs can simply divide assets among themselves on the anniversary of the disappearance. Getting legal advice on the proper procedure for your specific situation is the right next step.
Critical note: remarriage is governed by a different rule
Many people reading about presumptive death want to know whether the missing person's spouse can remarry. Article 390 does not answer that question, and relying on it for remarriage is a serious mistake. A spouse who wishes to remarry must follow Article 41 of the Family Code, which sets its own period and — more importantly — requires a judicial declaration of presumptive death before the second marriage can validly take place. Remarrying without that judicial declaration, on the belief that the ten-year period under Article 390 is enough, puts the second marriage at legal risk. The two rules serve different purposes and cannot be substituted for each other.
What happens if the absentee returns
Presumptive death is not permanent death. If the missing person reappears after the estate has been opened and distributed, the legal consequences depend on what has happened to the assets. Article 390 addresses presumption of death; the Civil Code's other provisions on absence and the recovery of property govern what happens next. Heirs who receive property during the absentee's presumed death period are not automatically stripped of everything, but the returning person has legal avenues. The complexity of that situation is precisely why the law requires formal proceedings rather than informal family division.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Eduardo P. Manuel vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Estrellita Tadeo-Matias, vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 230751, April 25, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Angelita Valdez vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180863, September 8, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Leilanie Dela Cruz Fenol, G.R. No. 212726, June 10, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →