Case Digest (G.R. No. 136253)
Facts:
Tomas Eugenio, Sr. v. Hon. Alejandro M. Velez, G.R. Nos. 85140 and 86470, May 17, 1990, Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Tomas Eugenio, Sr. (petitioner) sought relief in this Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for restraining order and/or injunction (docketed as G.R. No. 85140) to enjoin the respondent judge and deputy sheriff from enforcing a writ and orders in Sp. Proc. No. 88-55 (Habeas Corpus) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, and to declare those writs and orders null and void. A second petition for review (G.R. No. 86470) raised substantially the same legal questions and was consolidated with the first.
On 27 September 1988, Vitaliana Vargas’s full-blood siblings (the private respondents, hereafter the Vargases) filed a petition for habeas corpus in the RTC alleging that Vitaliana had been forcibly taken and detained in petitioner’s residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental; they averred she was about 25 years old, single, and living with petitioner. Unbeknownst to the Vargases when they filed the petition, Vitaliana had in fact died on August 28, 1988. The RTC issued the writ of habeas corpus on 28 September 1988, which was returned unsatisfied when petitioner refused to produce the person, contending a corpse cannot be the subject of habeas corpus and asserting he had obtained a burial permit from the Department of Health and that, as Vitaliana’s common-law husband and founder of a religious sect (PBCM), he had custody rights over the body.
The RTC issued orders on 29 and 30 September 1988 directing delivery of the body to a funeral parlor and an autopsy. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss invoking lack of jurisdiction under Rule 16, Sec. 1(b) vis-à-vis Rule 72, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court, arguing habeas corpus does not apply to dead persons. The Vargases, claiming they learned of the death only on 28 September, were granted leave to amend their petition and pressed that, under Articles 305 and 308 of the Civil Code, as next of kin they were entitled to custody for burial. Proceedings continued without a restraining order from this Court: the body was coffined, transferred to Greenhills Memorial Homes, viewed by the presiding judge, and examined by a government pathologist.
By order dated 17 November 1988 the RTC denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss, concluding the court had jurisdiction under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 to determine custody and burial of the dead body, and treated the matter as an action for custody/possession/authority to bury. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on 17 January 1989 awarding custody of Vitaliana’s body to her brothers and sisters rather than to petitioner, reasoning that petitioner was not a lawful spouse (he was legally married to another woman) and thus inferior in the statutory order of preference.
Petitioner filed the second petition for review (G.R. No. 86470) on 23 January 1989 and sought injunctive relief to maintain the status quo, which this Court denied on 23 February 1989. The two petitions were consolidated and submitted for decision by the Supreme C...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was a habeas corpus proceeding under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court proper to recover custody of the (now deceased) Vitaliana Vargas?
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction and authority to treat the habeas corpus petition as an action for custody/possession and burial of the dead body?
- Does the term “spouse” in paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Civil Code include a common-law partner such as petitioner for purpo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)