Eugenio V Velez Supra
Eugenio V Velez Supra
Eugenio V Velez Supra
orders as null and void. In a resolution issued on 11 October 1988, this Court required comment from
the respondents on the petition but denied the application for a temporary restraining order.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
The records disclose the following:
EN BANC
Unaware of the death on 28 August 1988 of (Vitaliana Vargas Vitaliana
for brevity), her full blood brothers and sisters, herein private respondents
(Vargases', for brevity) filed on 27 September 1988, a petition for habeas
corpusbefore the RTC of Misamis Oriental (Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro
G.R. No. 85140 May 17, 1990 City) alleging that Vitaliana was forcibly taken from her residence
sometime in 1987 and confined by herein petitioner in his palacial
TOMAS EUGENIO, SR., petitioner, residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. Despite her desire to escape,
vs. Vitaliana was allegedly deprived of her liberty without any legal authority.
HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial At the time the petition was filed, it was alleged that Vitaliana was 25
Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, DEPUTY SHERIFF years of age, single, and living with petitioner Tomas Eugenio.
JOHNSON TAN, JR., Deputy Sheriff of Branch 20, Regional Trial
Court, Cagayan de Oro City, and the Private Respondents, the The respondent court in an order dated 28 September 1988 issued the
petitioners in Sp. Proc. No. 88-55, for "Habeas Corpus", namely: writ of habeas corpus, but the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner
CRISANTA VARGAS-SANCHEZ, SANTOS and NARCISA VARGAS- refused to surrender the body of Vitaliana (who had died on 28 August
BENTULAN, respondents. 1988) to the respondent sheriff, reasoning that a corpse cannot be the
subject of habeas corpus proceedings; besides, according to petitioner,
G.R. No. 86470 May 17, 1990. he had already obtained a burial permit from the Undersecretary of the
Department of Health, authorizing the burial at the palace quadrangle of
TOMAS EUGENIO, petitioner-appellant, the Philippine Benevolent Christian Missionary, Inc. (PBCM), a registered
vs. religious sect, of which he (petitioner) is the Supreme President and
HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Founder.
Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, CRISANTA VARGAS-
SANCHEZ, FELIX VARGAS, ERNESTO VARGAS, NATIVIDAD Petitioner also alleged that Vitaliana died of heart failure due to toxemia
VARGAS-CAGAPE, NENITA VARGAS-CADENAS, LUDIVINA of pregnancy in his residence on 28 August 1988. As her common law
VARGAS-DE LOS SANTOS and NARCISA VARGAS- husband, petitioner claimed legal custody of her body. These reasons
BENTULAN, respondents-appellees. were incorporated in an explanation filed before the respondent court.
Two (2) orders dated 29 and 30 September 1988 were then issued by
Maximo G. Rodriguez for petitioner. respondent court, directing delivery of the deceased's body to a funeral
parlor in Cagayan de Oro City and its autopsy.
Erasmo B. Damasing and Oliver Asis Improso for respondents.
Petitioner (as respondent in the habeas corpus proceedings) filed an
urgent motion to dismiss the petition therein, claiming lack of jurisdiction
of the court over the nature of the action under sec. 1(b) of Rule 16 in
PADILLA, J.: relation to sec. 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. A special proceeding
1
custody of the dead body of the late Vitaliana Vargas as of Court Articles 305 and 308 in relation to Article 294 of the Civil Code
8
well as the burial or interment thereof, for the reason that and Section 1104 of the Revised Administrative Code, the decision
9
Satisfied with its jurisdiction, the respondent court then proceeded to the (1) From
matter of rightful custody over the dead body, (for purposes of burial the spouse;
thereof). The order of preference to give support under Art. 294 was used
as the basis of the award. Since there was no surviving spouse, x x x x x x x x x
ascendants or descendants, the brothers and sisters were preferred over
petitioner who was merely a common law spouse, the latter being himself
Section 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides for the exclusive original
legally married to another woman. 11
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts over civil cases. Under Sec. 2,
Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas corpus may be granted
On 23 January 1989, a new petition for review with application for a by a Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court). It is an
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction was filed with elementary rule of procedure that what controls is not the caption of the
this Court (G.R. No. 86470). Raised therein were pure questions of law, complaint or petition; but the allegations therein determine the nature of
basically Identical to those raised in the earlier petition (G.R. No. 85140); the action, and even without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper
hence, the consolidation of both cases. On 7 February 1989, petitioner
12
relief may nevertheless be granted by the court if the facts alleged in the
filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an injunction to maintain status complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant. 13
grant the writ if the petition is insufficient in form and substance, the writ
1. propriety of a habeas corpus proceeding under Rule should issue if the petition complies with the legal requirements and its
102 of the Rules of Court to recover custody of the dead averments make a prima facie case for relief. However, a judge who is
body of a 25 year old female, single, whose nearest asked to issue a writ of habeas corpus need not be very critical in looking
surviving claimants are full blood brothers and sisters and into the petition for very clear grounds for the exercise of this jurisdiction.
a common law husband. The latter's power to make full inquiry into the cause of commitment or
detention will enable him to correct any errors or defects in the petition. 15
to continue an illicit relation that morals and law repudiate. ownership requires that the man and woman living together must not in
any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. In any case, herein
21
xxx xxx xxx petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another woman, a legal
impediment which disqualified him from even legally marrying Vitaliana.
The minor's welfare being the paramount consideration, In Santero vs. CFI of Cavite, ,the Court, thru Mr. Justice Paras,
22
the court below should not allow the technicality, that interpreting Art. 188 of the Civil Code (Support of Surviving Spouse and
Teofilo Macazo was not originally made a party, to stand Children During Liquidation of Inventoried Property) stated: "Be it noted
in the way of its giving the child full protection. Even in however that with respect to 'spouse', the same must be the legitimate
a habeas corpus proceeding the court had power to 'spouse' (not common-law spouses)."
award temporary custody to the petitioner herein, or some
other suitable person, after summoning and hearing all There is a view that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the
parties concerned. What matters is that the immoral term "spouse" embraces common law relation for purposes of exemption
situation disclosed by the records be not allowed to from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief
continue. 17
committed or caused mutually by spouses. The Penal Code article, it is
said, makes no distinction between a couple whose cohabitation is
After the fact of Vitaliana's death was made known to the petitioners in sanctioned by a sacrament or legal tie and another who are husband and
the habeas corpus proceedings, amendment of the petition for habeas wife de facto. But this view cannot even apply to the facts of the case at
23
corpus, not dismissal, was proper to avoid multiplicity of suits. bar. We hold that the provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly
Amendments to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally providing to the contrary as in Article 144, when referring to a "spouse"
allowed in furtherance of justice in order that every case may so far as contemplate a lawfully wedded spouse. Petitioner vis-a-vis Vitaliana was
possible be determined on its real facts and in order to expedite the trial not a lawfully-wedded spouse to her; in fact, he was not legally
of cases or prevent circuity of action and unnecessary expense, unless capacitated to marry her in her lifetime.
there are circumstances such as inexcusable delay or the taking of the
adverse party by surprise or the like, which justify a refusal of permission Custody of the dead body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to her
to amend. As correctly alleged by respondents, the writ of habeas
18
surviving brothers and sisters (the Vargases). Section 1103 of the
corpus as a remedy became moot and academic due to the death of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
person allegedly restrained of liberty, but the issue of custody remained,
which the court a quo had to resolve. Sec. 1103. Persons charged with duty of burial. — The
immediate duty of burying the body of a deceased
Petitioner claims he is the spouse contemplated under Art. 294 of the person, regardless of the ultimate liability for the expense
Civil Code, the term spouse used therein not being preceded by any thereof, shall devolve upon the persons hereinbelow
qualification; hence, in the absence of such qualification, he is the rightful specified:
custodian of Vitaliana's body. Vitaliana's brothers and sisters contend
otherwise. Indeed, Philippine Law does not recognize common law x x x x x x x x x
marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for many
(b) If the deceased was an unmarried man Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civil actions. — In the
or woman, or a child, and left any kin, the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in
duty of burial shall devolve upon the ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable
nearest of kin of the deceased, if they be in special proceedings.
adults and within the Philippines and in
possession of sufficient means to defray 2 3 and 11 October 1988 orders, Record of Regional Trial
the necessary expenses. Court Proceedings, pp. 74, 75 & 102.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Both petitions 3 Art. 305. The duty and the right to make arrangements
are hereby DISMISSED. No Costs. for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the
order established for support, under article 294. In case of
SO ORDERED. descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and
sisters, the oldest shall be preferred. In case of
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, ascendants, the paternal shall have a better right.
Feliciano, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ.,
concur. Art. 308. No human remains shall be retained, interred
disposed of or exhumed without the consent of the
Gancayco and Grino-Aquino, JJ., are on leave. persons mentioned in Articles 294 and 305.
Sec. 1. Grounds. — Within the time for pleading a motion 8 Sec. 5 — Inherent power of courts; Sec. 6 — means to
to dismiss the action may be made on any of the following carry jurisdiction into effect.
grounds:
9 Sec. 1104. Right of custody to body — Any person
(a) . . . charged by law with the duty of burying the body of a
deceased person is entitled to the custody of such body
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the for the purpose of burying it, except when an inquest is
action or suit; required by law for the purpose of determining the cause
of death; and, in case of death due to or accompanied by
a dangerous communicable disease, such body shall until
Rule 72 (Subject Matter and Applicability of General
buried remain in the custody of the local board of health
Rules)
or local health officer, or if there be no such, then in the
custody of the municipal council.
xxx xxx xxx
10 G.R. No. 86470, Rollo at 34.
11 Annexes 7 & 8, Petition, G.R. No. 85140, Rollo at 85
and 86.
15 Ibid., §130.
17 Ibid.