Read with care. This presumption is sound for civil purposes such as settling an estate — but it is NOT the rule for remarriage. A spouse who wants to remarry must proceed under Article 41 of the Family Code, which sets its own period and requires a judicial declaration of presumptive death first. Remarrying on the strength of the periods below, without that declaration, puts the second marriage at risk.
Text of the provision
Art. 390. 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.
(n)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
After an absence of seven years, with no knowledge whether the absentee still lives, he is presumed dead for all purposes except succession. For opening his succession the absence must run ten years — or only five years if he disappeared after the age of seventy-five.
Related provisions
- Article 389 — When Administration Ceases.
- Article 391 — Presumed Dead After Four Years.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Republic of the Philippines vs. Remar A. Quiñonez, G.R. No. 237412, January 6, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.