Hence, this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Candano Shipping raising the following issues:   WHETHER OR NOT THE FORMULA FOR FIXING THE AMOUNT OF DEATH COMPENSATION IN ARTICLE 194 OF THE LABOR CODE APPLIES IN DETERMINING THE COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE HEIR OF THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE AGAINST THE EMPLOYER UNDER ARTICLE 1711?   WHETHER OR NOT IT IS PERMITTED FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS, ON ORDINARY APPEAL, TO APPLY ART. 194 OF THE LABOR CODE ON A CLAIM FOR DEATH COMPENSATION OF AN EMPLOYEE AGAINST THE EMPLOYER FILED AND TRIED BEFORE THE REGULAR COURTS ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 1711 OF THE CIVIL CODE AND THE DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED IN THE VILLA REY TRANSIT CASE?   WHETHER OR NOT APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 194 OF THE LABOR CODE ON THE CLAIM FOR DEATH COMPENSATION OF RESPONDENT OUSTS THE REGULAR COURTS, INCLUDING THE COURT OF APPEALS OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE?   IN THE EVENT THAT THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 194 OF THE LABOR CODE IN THIS CASE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE, IS RESPONDENT ENTITLED TO RECOVER DEATH COMPENSATION FROM PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER THEORY OF THE CASE AS ALLEGED, ARGUED AND TRIED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.[17]     Since the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the nonrecovery of Melquiades body for the period of four (4) years from 27 March 1996 creates a presumption that he is already dead and that his death was caused by a fortuitous event, were already settled, and considering that these findings were notcontroverted by the parties in this instant petition, we find no compelling reason to disturb the same. Henceforth, we will limit our discussion to the computation of the amount of indemnification.   In its Petition, Candano Shipping argues that the application of the measure stipulated under Article 194 of the Labor Code is erroneous since it applies only to