G.R. No.

85140 May 17, 1990

TOMAS EUGENIO, SR., petitioner,
vs.
HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, P!"#$#%& J'$&!, R!&#o%a( T#a( )o'*, +a%,- .0,
)a&aya% $! Oo )#*y, DEPUT/ SHERI00 JOHNSON TAN, JR., D!1'*y S-!#22 o2
+a%,- .0, R!&#o%a( T#a( )o'*, )a&aya% $! Oo )#*y, a%$ *-! P#3a*! R!"1o%$!%*",
*-! 1!*#*#o%!" #% S1. Po,. No. 88455, 2o 5Habeas Corpus5, %a6!(y7 )RISANTA
VARGAS4SAN)HEZ, SANTOS a%$ NAR)ISA VARGAS4+ENTULAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 88470 May 17, 1990.
TOMAS EUGENIO, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, P!"#$#%& J'$&!, R!&#o%a( T#a( )o'*, +a%,- .0,
)a&aya% $! Oo )#*y, )RISANTA VARGAS4SAN)HEZ, 0ELI9 VARGAS, ERNESTO
VARGAS, NATIVIDAD VARGAS4)AGAPE, NENITA VARGAS4)ADENAS, LUDIVINA
VARGAS4DE LOS SANTOS a%$ NAR)ISA VARGAS4+ENTULAN, respondents-
appellees.
Maximo G. Rodriguez for petitioner.
Erasmo B. Damasing and Oliver Asis Improso for respondents.

PADILLA, J.:
On 5 October 1988, petitioner came to this Court with a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with application for restraining order and/or inunction !doc"eted as #.$. %o. 851&'(
see"ing to enoin respondent )udge from proceeding with the *abeas orpus case !+p.
,roc. %o. 88- 55, $-C, .ranch /', Caga0an de Oro Cit0(, : the respondent +heriff from
enforcing and implementing the writ and orders of the respondent )udge dated /8, /9, and
1' +eptember 1988, and to declare said writ and orders as null and void. 2n a resolution
issued on 11 October 1988, this Court re3uired comment from the respondents on the
petition but denied the application for a temporar0 restraining order.
-he records disclose the following4
5naware of the death on /8 6ugust 1988 of !7italiana 7argas 7italiana for brevit0(, her full
blood brothers and sisters, herein private respondents !7argases8, for brevit0( filed on /9
+eptember 1988, a petition for !abeas corpus before the $-C of :isamis Oriental !.ranch
/', Caga0an de Oro Cit0( alleging that 7italiana was forcibl0 ta"en from her residence
sometime in 1989 and confined b0 herein petitioner in his palacial residence in )asaan,
:isamis Oriental. ;espite her desire to escape, 7italiana was allegedl0 deprived of her
libert0 without an0 legal authorit0. 6t the time the petition was filed, it was alleged that
7italiana was /5 0ears of age, single, and living with petitioner -omas <ugenio.
-he respondent court in an order dated /8 +eptember 1988 issued the writ of !abeas
corpus, but the writ was returned unsatisfied. ,etitioner refused to surrender the bod0 of
7italiana !who had died on /8 6ugust 1988( to the respondent sheriff, reasoning that a
corpse cannot be the subect of !abeas corpus proceedings= besides, according to
petitioner, he had alread0 obtained a burial permit from the 5ndersecretar0 of the
;epartment of *ealth, authori>ing the burial at the palace 3uadrangle of the ,hilippine
.enevolent Christian :issionar0, 2nc. !,.C:(, a registered religious sect, of which he
!petitioner( is the +upreme ,resident and ?ounder.
,etitioner also alleged that 7italiana died of heart failure due to to@emia of pregnanc0 in his
residence on /8 6ugust 1988. 6s her common law husband, petitioner claimed legal
custod0 of her bod0. -hese reasons were incorporated in an e@planation filed before the
respondent court. -wo !/( orders dated /9 and 1' +eptember 1988 were then issued b0
respondent court, directing deliver0 of the deceased8s bod0 to a funeral parlor in Caga0an
de Oro Cit0 and its autops0.
,etitioner !as respondent in the !abeas corpus proceedings( filed an urgent motion to
dismiss the petition therein, claiming lac" of urisdiction of the court over the nature of the
action under sec. 1!b( of $ule 1A in relation to sec. /, $ule 9/ of the $ules of Court.
1
6
special proceeding for !abeas corpus, petitioner argued, is not applicable to a dead person
but e@tends onl0 to all cases of illegal confinement or detention of a live person.
.efore resolving the motion to dismiss, private respondents !as petitioners below( were
granted leave to amend their petition.
.
Claiming to have "nowledge of the death of 7italiana
onl0 on /8 +eptember 1988 !or after the filing of the !abeas corpus petition(, private
respondents !7argases8( alleged that petitioner -omas <ugenia who is not in an0 wa0
related to 7italiana was wrongfull0 interfering with their !7argases8( dut0 to bur0 her.
2nvo"ing 6rts. 1'5 and 1'8 of the Civil Code,
;
the 7argases contended that, as the ne@t of
"in in the ,hilippines, the0 are the legal custodians of the dead bod0 of their sister 7italiana.
6n e@change of pleadings followed. -he motion to dismiss was finall0 submitted for
resolution on /1 October 1988.
2n the absence of a restraining order from this Court, proceedings continued before the
respondent court= the bod0 was placed in a coffin, transferred to the #reenhills :emorial
*omes in Caga0an de Oro Cit0, viewed b0 the presiding )udge of respondent court, and
e@amined b0 a dul0 authori>ed government pathologist.
4
;en0ing the motion to dismiss filed b0 petitioner, the court a "uo held in an order,
5
dated 19
%ovember 1988, that4
2t should be noted from the original petition, to the first amended petition, up
to the second amended petition that the ultimate facts show that if the person
of 7italiana 7argas turns out to be dead then this Court is being pra0ed to
declare the petitioners as the persons entitled to the custod0, interment and/or
burial of the bod0 of said deceased. -he Court, considering the circumstance
that 7italiana 7argas was alread0 dead on 6ugust /8, 1988 but onl0 revealed
to the Court on +eptember /9, 1988 b0 respondent8s counsel, did not lose
urisdiction over the nature and subect matter of this case because it ma0
entertain this case thru the allegations in the bod0 of the petition on the
determination as to who is entitled to the custod0 of the dead bod0 of the late
7italiana 7argas as well as the burial or interment thereof, for the reason that
under the provisions of +ec. 19 of .atas ,ambansa .lg. 1/9, which reads as
follows4
+ec. 19. #urisdiction in civil cases. B $egional -rial Courts shall e@ercise
e@clusive original urisdiction4
!1( 2n all civil actions in which the subect of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniar0 estimation=
@@@ @@@ @@@
!5( 2n all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
relations=
!A( 2n all cases not within the e@clusive urisdiction of an0 court,
tribunal, person or bod0 e@ercising udicial or 3uasi-udicial
functions4
@@@ @@@ @@@
it so provides that the $egional -rial Court has e@clusive original urisdiction
to tr0 this case. -he authorit0 to tr0 the issue of custod0 and burial of a dead
person is within the lawful urisdiction of this Court because of .atas
,ambansa .lg. 1/9 and because of the allegations of the pleadings in this
case, which are enumerated in +ec. 19, pars. 1, 5 and A of .atas ,ambansa
.lg. 1/9.
-hereafter, the court a "uo proceeded as in or civil cases and, in due course, rendered a
decision on 19 )anuar0 1989,
8
resolving the main issue of whether or not said court
ac3uired urisdiction over the case b0 treating it as an action for custod0 of a dead bod0,
without the petitioners having to file a separate civil action for such relief, and without the
Court first dismissing the original petition for !abeas corpus.
Citing +ections 19 and /' of .atas ,ambansa .lg. 1/9 !the )udiciar0 $eorgani>ation 6ct of
1981(,
7
+ections 5 and A of $ule 115 of the $ules of Court
8
6rticles 1'5 and 1'8 in relation
to 6rticle /9& of the Civil Code and +ection 11'& of the $evised 6dministrative Code,
9
the
decision stated4
. . . . .0 a mere reading of the petition the court observed that the allegations in the
original petition as well as in the two amended petitions show that 7italiana 7argas has
been restrained of her libert0 and if she were dead then relief was pra0ed for the custod0
and burial of said dead person. -he amendments to the petition were but elaborations but
the ultimate facts remained the same, hence, this court strongl0 finds that this court has
ample urisdiction to entertain and sit on this case as an action for custod0 and burial of
the dead bod0 because the bod0 of the petition controls and is binding and since this
case was raffled to this court to the e@clusion of all other courts, it is the primar0 dut0 of
this court to decide and dispose of this case. . . . .
10
+atisfied with its urisdiction, the respondent court then proceeded to the matter of rightful
custod0 over the dead bod0, !for purposes of burial thereof(. -he order of preference to give
support under 6rt. /9& was used as the basis of the award. +ince there was no surviving
spouse, ascendants or descendants, the brothers and sisters were preferred over petitioner
who was merel0 a common law spouse, the latter being himself legall0 married to another
woman.
11
On /1 )anuar0 1989, a new petition for review with application for a temporar0 restraining
order and/or preliminar0 inunction was filed with this Court !#.$. %o. 8A&9'(. $aised
therein were pure 3uestions of law, basicall0 2dentical to those raised in the earlier petition
!#.$. %o. 851&'(= hence, the consolidation of both cases.
1.
On 9 ?ebruar0 1989, petitioner
filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an inunction to maintain status "uo pending
appeal, which this Court denied in a resolution dated /1 ?ebruar0 1989 stating that C-omas
<ugenio has so far failed to sufficientl0 establish a clear legal right to the custod0 of the
dead bod0 of 7italiana 7argas, which now needs a decent burial.C -he petitions were then
submitted for decision without further pleadings.
.etween the two !/( consolidated petitions, the following issues are raised4
1. propriet0 of a !abeas corpus proceeding under $ule 1'/ of the $ules of
Court to recover custod0 of the dead bod0 of a /5 0ear old female, single,
whose nearest surviving claimants are full blood brothers and sisters and a
common law husband.
/. urisdiction of the $-C over such proceedings and/or its authorit0 to treat
the action as one for custod0/possession/authorit0 to bur0 the
deceased/recover0 of the dead.
1. interpretation of par. 1, 6rt. /9& of the Civil Code !6rt. 199 of
the new ?amil0 Code( which states4
6rt. /9&. -he claim for support, when proper and two or more
persons are obliged to give it, shall be made in the following
order4
!1( ?rom the spouse=
@@@ @@@ @@@
+ection 19, .atas ,ambansa .lg. 1/9 provides for the e@clusive original urisdiction of the
$egional -rial Courts over civil cases. 5nder +ec. /, $ule 1'/ of the $ules of Court, the writ
of !abeas corpus ma0 be granted b0 a Court of ?irst 2nstance !now $egional -rial Court(. 2t
is an elementar0 rule of procedure that what controls is not the caption of the complaint or
petition= but the allegations therein determine the nature of the action, and even without the
pra0er for a specific remed0, proper relief ma0 nevertheless be granted b0 the court if the
facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant.
1;
Dhen the petition for !abeas corpus was filed before the court a "uo, it was not certain
whether 7italiana was dead or alive. Dhile !abeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue
as a matter of course or as a mere perfimetor0 operation on the filing of the petition. )udicial
discretion is e@ercised in its issuance, and such facts must be made to appear to the udge
to whom the petition is presented as, in his udgment, prima facie entitle the petitioner to the
writ.
14
Dhile the court ma0 refuse to grant the writ if the petition is insufficient in form and
substance, the writ should issue if the petition complies with the legal re3uirements and its
averments ma"e a prima facie case for relief. *owever, a udge who is as"ed to issue a writ
of !abeas corpus need not be ver0 critical in loo"ing into the petition for ver0 clear grounds
for the e@ercise of this urisdiction. -he latter8s power to ma"e full in3uir0 into the cause of
commitment or detention will enable him to correct an0 errors or defects in the petition.
15
2n Macazo and $unez vs. $unez% 1A the Court frowned upon the dismissal of a !abeas
corpus petition filed b0 a brother to obtain custod0 of a minor sister, stating4
6ll these circumstances notwithstanding, we believe that the case should not
have been dismissed. -he court below should not have overloo"ed that b0
dismissing the petition, it was virtuall0 sanctioning the continuance of an
adulterous and scandalous relation between the minor and her married
emplo0er, respondent .enildo %une> against all principles of law and
moralit0. 2t is no e@cuse that the minor has e@pressed preference for
remaining with said respondent, because the minor ma0 not chose to
continue an illicit relation that morals and law repudiate.
@@@ @@@ @@@
-he minor8s welfare being the paramount consideration, the court below should not allow
the technicalit0, that -eofilo :aca>o was not originall0 made a part0, to stand in the wa0
of its giving the child full protection. <ven in a !abeas corpus proceeding the court had
power to award temporar0 custod0 to the petitioner herein, or some other suitable
person, after summoning and hearing all parties concerned. Dhat matters is that the
immoral situation disclosed b0 the records be not allowed to continue.
17
6fter the fact of 7italiana8s death was made "nown to the petitioners in the !abeas
corpus proceedings, amendment of the petition for !abeas corpus, not dismissal% was
proper to avoid multiplicit0 of suits. 6mendments to pleadings are generall0 favored and
should be liberall0 allowed in furtherance of ustice in order that ever0 case ma0 so far as
possible be determined on its real facts and in order to e@pedite the trial of cases or prevent
circuit0 of action and unnecessar0 e@pense, unless there are circumstances such as
ine@cusable dela0 or the ta"ing of the adverse part0 b0 surprise or the li"e, which ustif0 a
refusal of permission to amend.
18
6s correctl0 alleged b0 respondents, the writ of !abeas
corpus as a remed0 became moot and academic due to the death of the person allegedl0
restrained of libert0, but the issue of custod0 remained, which the court a 3uo had to
resolve.
,etitioner claims he is the spouse contemplated under 6rt. /9& of the Civil Code, the term
spouse used therein not being preceded b0 an0 3ualification= hence, in the absence of such
3ualification, he is the rightful custodian of 7italiana8s bod0. 7italiana8s brothers and sisters
contend otherwise. 2ndeed, ,hilippine Eaw does not recogni>e common law marriages. 6
man and woman not legall0 married who cohabit for man0 0ears as husband and wife, who
represent themselves to the public as husband and wife, and who are reputed to be
husband and wife in the communit0 where the0 live ma0 be considered legall0 mauled in
common law urisdictions but not in the ,hilippines.
19
Dhile it is true that our laws do not ust brush aside the fact that such relationships are
present in our societ0, and that the0 produce a communit0 of properties and interests which
is governed b0 law,
.0
authorit0 e@ists in case law to the effect that such form of co-
ownership re3uires that the man and woman living together must not in an0 wa0 be
incapacitated to contract marriage.
.1
2n an0 case, herein petitioner has a subsisting
marriage with another woman, a legal impediment which dis3ualified him from even legall0
marr0ing 7italiana. 2n &antero vs. 'I of avite%
..
,the Court, thru :r. )ustice ,aras,
interpreting 6rt. 188 of the Civil Code !+upport of +urviving +pouse and Children ;uring
Ei3uidation of 2nventoried ,ropert0( stated4 C.e it noted however that with respect to
8spouse8, the same must be the legitimate 8spouse8 !not common-law spouses(.C
-here is a view that under 6rticle 11/ of the $evised ,enal Code, the term CspouseC
embraces common law relation for purposes of e@emption from criminal liabilit0 in cases of
theft, swindling and malicious mischief committed or caused mutuall0 b0 spouses. -he
,enal Code article, it is said, ma"es no distinction between a couple whose cohabitation is
sanctioned b0 a sacrament or legal tie and another who are husband and wife de
facto.
.;
.ut this view cannot even appl0 to the facts of the case at bar. De hold that the
provisions of the Civil Code, unless e@pressl0 providing to the contrar0 as in 6rticle 1&&,
when referring to a CspouseC contemplate a lawfull0 wedded spouse. ,etitioner vis-a-vis
7italiana was not a lawfull0-wedded spouse to her= in fact, he was not legall0 capacitated to
marr0 her in her lifetime.
Custod0 of the dead bod0 of 7italiana was correctl0 awarded to her surviving brothers and
sisters !the 7argases(. +ection 11'1 of the $evised 6dministrative Code provides4
+ec. 11'1. (ersons c!arged )it! dut* of burial. B -he immediate dut0 of
bur0ing the bod0 of a deceased person, regardless of the ultimate liabilit0 for
the e@pense thereof, shall devolve upon the persons herein below specified4
@@@ @@@ @@@
!b( 2f the deceased was an unmarried man or woman, or a
child, and left an0 "in, the dut0 of burial shall devolve upon the
nearest of "in of the deceased, if the0 be adults and within the
,hilippines and in possession of sufficient means to defra0 the
necessar0 e@penses.
D*<$<?O$<, the decision appealed from is 6??2$:<;. .oth petitions are hereb0
;2+:2++<;. %o Costs.
+O O$;<$<;.