G.R. No. 85140 - Eugenio Sr. vs. Velez

On October 5, 1988, petitioner Tomas Eugenio Sr. filed with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 85140) a petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for restraining order, seeking to enjoin:

Respondent Judge Alejandro M. Velez from proceeding with Habeas Corpus Sp. Proc. No. 88-55, RTC Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro.
Deputy Sheriff Johnson Tan, Jr. from enforcing the writ and orders dated September 28–30, 1988.
Private respondents (Vargas siblings) from pursuing the habeas corpus petition.

The Supreme Court required comments on October 11, 1988, but denied the application for a temporary restraining order.

On September 27, 1988, Vitaliana Vargas’s full-blood siblings filed a petition for habeas corpus before RTC Branch 20, alleging that Vitaliana was forcibly confined by petitioner since 1987 in his Jasaan residence despite her desire to escape.
Unaware of Vitaliana’s death on August 28, 1988, the petitioners averred she was 25 years old, single, and living with petitioner as his common-law wife.
RTC issued the writ on September 28, 1988, which was returned unsatisfied when petitioner refused to surrender the body, arguing that a corpse cannot be the subject of habeas corpus and that he held a burial permit from the Department of Health.

On September 29 and 30, 1988, RTC ordered delivery of Vitaliana’s body to a funeral parlor and its autopsy.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 16, Sec. 1(b) and Rule 72, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court, arguing habeas corpus does not extend to deceased persons.
Private respondents amended their petition to seek custody and burial authority over the dead body, invoking Arts. 305 and 308 of the Civil Code as next of kin.
On November 17, 1988, RTC denied the motion to dismiss, holding jurisdiction under Sec. 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 to determine custody of the dead body as a civil action.
On January 17, 1989, RTC rendered judgment awarding custody of the body to the Vargas siblings, applying the order of preference in Art. 294, Civil Code, since no legal spouse survived.

Petitioner filed a second petition for review (G.R. No. 86470) on January 23, 1989, raising identical questions of law; the Court consolidated both cases.
On February 7, 1989, petitioner moved for interim injunction, denied on February 23, 1989.
The consolidated petitions were submitted for decision without further pleadings.

Whether a petition for habeas corpus under Rule 102, Rules of Court, is the proper remedy to recover custody of a dead body.
Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction and authority to treat the habeas corpus petition as an action for custody, possession, and burial of the deceased.
How to interpret paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Civil Code regarding the order of preference for support (spouse) in the context of custody of a dead body, particularly the meaning of “spouse.”