Title
Lucena vs. Elago
Case
G.R. No. 252120
Decision Date
Sep 15, 2020
Parents sought writs of amparo and habeas corpus to regain custody of their 19-year-old daughter, who voluntarily joined a youth organization. Court dismissed, citing her legal emancipation and lack of illegal confinement.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 252120)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
  • Petitioners Relissa and Francis Lucena are the parents of Alicia Jasper S. Lucena (AJ), born July 24, 2001, who enrolled in Grade 11 at Far Eastern University (FEU) in 2018.
  • In February 2019, AJ joined the FEU chapter of Anakbayan, a youth organization, informing petitioners on February 2.
  • Series of Departures and Activities
  • February 3–6, 2019: AJ left home without explanation and returned after three days.
  • March 10–May 25, 2019: AJ again left home; petitioners learned she was in custody of national leaders of Anakbayan—Chary Delos Reyes, Bianca Gacos, and Jay Roven Ballais Villafuente—conducting recruitment and campaigning for Kabataan Party-list and Neri Colmenares.
  • July 10, 2019 onward: AJ left home for the third time, ceased FEU attendance, and has not returned.
  • Public Proceedings and Petitions
  • August 7, 2019 Senate hearing: Relissa testified amid reports of student recruitment and alleged inducement to abandon homes.
  • August 14, 2019 press conference: AJ, with party-list representatives, denied abduction and asserted voluntary membership in Anakbayan.
  • Petition for writs of amparo and habeas corpus filed to regain custody, including interim protection order, production in court, custody award, and medical/psychological examination, contending AJ’s consent was invalid due to radicalization as a minor.
  • May 19, 2020 Court resolution required respondents—Anakbayan leaders, Kabataan representative Sarah Elago, spokesperson Alex Danday, and counsel Atty. Maria Kristina Conti—to show cause within ten days; respondents complied.

Issues:

  • Whether the writ of amparo is an available remedy for AJ’s alleged deprivation of liberty in this context.
  • Whether the writ of habeas corpus lies to compel respondents to produce AJ and restore her to petitioners’ custody.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.