G.R. No.

85140 May 17, 1990 comment from the respondents on the petition but denied the application
for a temporary restraining order.
TOMAS EUGENIO, SR., petitioner,
vs. The records disclose the following:
HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch
20, Cagayan de Oro City, DEPUTY SHERIFF JOHNSON TAN, JR., Deputy Unaware of the death on 28 August 1988 of (Vitaliana Vargas Vitaliana for
brevity), her full blood brothers and sisters, herein private respondents
Sheriff of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City, and the
Private Respondents, the petitioners in Sp. Proc. No. 88-55, for "Habeas (Vargases', for brevity) filed on 27 September 1988, a petition for  habeas
corpus before the RTC of Misamis Oriental (Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City)
Corpus", namely: CRISANTA VARGAS-SANCHEZ, SANTOS and NARCISA
VARGAS-BENTULAN, respondents. alleging that Vitaliana was forcibly taken from her residence sometime in
1987 and confined by herein petitioner in his palacial residence in Jasaan,
G.R. No. 86470 May 17, 1990. Misamis Oriental. Despite her desire to escape, Vitaliana was allegedly
deprived of her liberty without any legal authority. At the time the petition
TOMAS EUGENIO, petitioner-appellant, was filed, it was alleged that Vitaliana was 25 years of age, single, and living
vs. with petitioner Tomas Eugenio.
HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch
20, Cagayan de Oro City, CRISANTA VARGAS-SANCHEZ, FELIX VARGAS, The respondent court in an order dated 28 September 1988 issued the writ
ERNESTO VARGAS, NATIVIDAD VARGAS-CAGAPE, NENITA VARGAS- of habeas corpus, but the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner refused
CADENAS, LUDIVINA VARGAS-DE LOS SANTOS and NARCISA VARGAS- to surrender the body of Vitaliana (who had died on 28 August 1988) to the
BENTULAN, respondents-appellees. respondent sheriff, reasoning that a corpse cannot be the subject of habeas
corpus proceedings; besides, according to petitioner, he had already
Maximo G. Rodriguez for petitioner. obtained a burial permit from the Undersecretary of the Department of
Erasmo B. Damasing and Oliver Asis Improso for respondents. Health, authorizing the burial at the palace quadrangle of the Philippine
Benevolent Christian Missionary, Inc. (PBCM), a registered religious sect, of
which he (petitioner) is the Supreme President and Founder.

PADILLA, J.: Petitioner also alleged that Vitaliana died of heart failure due to toxemia of
pregnancy in his residence on 28 August 1988. As her common law husband,
On 5 October 1988, petitioner came to this Court with a petition
petitioner claimed legal custody of her body. These reasons were
for certiorari and prohibition with application for restraining order and/or
incorporated in an explanation filed before the respondent court. Two (2)
injunction (docketed as G.R. No. 85140) seeking to enjoin respondent Judge
orders dated 29 and 30 September 1988 were then issued by respondent
from proceeding with the Habeas Corpus case (Sp. Proc. No. 88- 55, RTC,
court, directing delivery of the deceased's body to a funeral parlor in
Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City), * the respondent Sheriff from enforcing
Cagayan de Oro City and its autopsy.
and implementing the writ and orders of the respondent Judge dated 28,
29, and 30 September 1988, and to declare said writ and orders as null and Petitioner (as respondent in the habeas corpus proceedings) filed an urgent
void. In a resolution issued on 11 October 1988, this Court required 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 relation to interment thereof, for the reason that under the provisions of Sec. 19 of
sec. 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. 1 A special proceeding for habeas Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which reads as follows:
corpus, petitioner argued, is not applicable to a dead person but extends
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
only to all cases of illegal confinement or detention of a live person.
exclusive original jurisdiction:
Before resolving the motion to dismiss, private respondents (as petitioners
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
below) were granted leave to amend their petition. 2 Claiming to have
knowledge of the death of Vitaliana only on 28 September 1988 (or after pecuniary estimation;
the filing of the habeas corpus petition), private respondents (Vargases') x x x           x x x          x x x
alleged that petitioner Tomas Eugenia who is not in any way related to
Vitaliana was wrongfully interfering with their (Vargases') duty to bury her. (5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
Invoking Arts. 305 and 308 of the Civil Code, 3 the Vargases contended that,
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
as the next of kin in the Philippines, they are the legal custodians of the
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions:
dead body of their sister Vitaliana. An exchange of pleadings followed. The
motion to dismiss was finally submitted for resolution on 21 October 1988. xxx xxx xxx
In the absence of a restraining order from this Court, proceedings continued it so provides that the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
before the respondent court; the body was placed in a coffin, transferred to to try this case. The authority to try the issue of custody and burial of a dead
the Greenhills Memorial Homes in Cagayan de Oro City, viewed by the person is within the lawful jurisdiction of this Court because of Batas
presiding Judge of respondent court, and examined by a duly authorized Pambansa Blg. 129 and because of the allegations of the pleadings in this
government pathologist. 4 case, which are enumerated in Sec. 19, pars. 1, 5 and 6 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129.
Denying the motion to dismiss filed by petitioner, the court a quo held in an
order, 5 dated 17 November 1988, that: Thereafter, the court a quo proceeded as in or civil cases and, in due course,
rendered a decision on 17 January 1989, 6 resolving the main issue of
It should be noted from the original petition, to the first amended petition,
whether or not said court acquired jurisdiction over the case by treating it
up to the second amended petition that the ultimate facts show that if the
as an action for custody of a dead body, without the petitioners having to
person of Vitaliana Vargas turns out to be dead then this Court is being
file a separate civil action for such relief, and without the Court first
prayed to declare the petitioners as the persons entitled to the custody,
dismissing the original petition for habeas corpus.
interment and/or burial of the body of said deceased. The Court,
considering the circumstance that Vitaliana Vargas was already dead on Citing Sections 19 and 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the Judiciary
August 28, 1988 but only revealed to the Court on September 29, 1988 by Reorganization Act of 1981), 7 Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 135 of the Rules of
respondent's counsel, did not lose jurisdiction over the nature and subject Court8 Articles 305 and 308 in relation to Article 294 of the Civil Code and
matter of this case because it may entertain this case thru the allegations in Section 1104 of the Revised Administrative Code, 9 the decision stated:
the body of the petition on the determination as to who is entitled to the
custody of the dead body of the late Vitaliana Vargas as well as the burial or
. . . . By a mere reading of the petition the court observed that the whose nearest surviving claimants are full blood brothers and sisters and a
allegations in the original petition as well as in the two amended petitions common law husband.
show that Vitaliana Vargas has been restrained of her liberty and if she were
2. jurisdiction of the RTC over such proceedings and/or its authority to treat
dead then relief was prayed for the custody and burial of said dead person.
The amendments to the petition were but elaborations but the ultimate the action as one for custody/possession/authority to bury the
deceased/recovery of the dead.
facts remained the same, hence, this court strongly finds that this court has
ample jurisdiction to entertain and sit on this case as an action for custody 3. interpretation of par. 1, Art. 294 of the Civil Code (Art. 199 of the new
and burial of the dead body because the body of the petition controls and is Family Code) which states:
binding and since this case was raffled to this court to the exclusion of all
other courts, it is the primary duty of this court to decide and dispose of this Art. 294. The claim for support, when proper and two or more persons are
case. . . . . 10 obliged to give it, shall be made in the following order:

Satisfied with its jurisdiction, the respondent court then proceeded to the (1) From the spouse;
matter of rightful custody over the dead body, (for purposes of burial
x x x           x x x          x x x
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, ascendants Section 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides for the exclusive original
or descendants, the brothers and sisters were preferred over petitioner who jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts over civil cases. Under Sec. 2, Rule
was merely a common law spouse, the latter being himself legally married 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas corpus may be granted by a
to another woman. 11 Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court). It is an elementary rule of
procedure that what controls is not the caption of the complaint or petition;
On 23 January 1989, a new petition for review with application for a
but the allegations therein determine the nature of the action, and even
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction was filed with
without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may nevertheless be
this Court (G.R. No. 86470). Raised therein were pure questions of law,
granted by the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence
basically Identical to those raised in the earlier petition (G.R. No. 85140);
introduced so warrant. 13
hence, the consolidation of both cases. 12 On 7 February 1989, petitioner
filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an injunction to maintain status When the petition for habeas corpus was filed before the court a quo, it was
quo pending appeal, which this Court denied in a resolution dated 23 not certain whether Vitaliana was dead or alive. While habeas corpus is a
February 1989 stating that "Tomas Eugenio has so far failed to sufficiently writ of right, it will not issue as a matter of course or as a mere perfimetory
establish a clear legal right to the custody of the dead body of Vitaliana operation on the filing of the petition. Judicial discretion is exercised in its
Vargas, which now needs a decent burial." The petitions were then issuance, and such facts must be made to appear to the judge to whom the
submitted for decision without further pleadings. petition is presented as, in his judgment, prima facie  entitle the petitioner
to the writ. 14 While the court may refuse to grant the writ if the petition is
Between the two (2) consolidated petitions, the following issues are raised:
insufficient in form and substance, the writ should issue if the petition
1. propriety of a habeas corpus proceeding under Rule 102 of the Rules of complies with the legal requirements and its averments make a  prima
Court to recover custody of the dead body of a 25 year old female, single, facie case for relief. However, a judge who is asked to issue a writ of habeas
corpus need not be very critical in looking into the petition for very clear by surprise or the like, which justify a refusal of permission to amend. 18 As
grounds for the exercise of this jurisdiction. The latter's power to make full correctly alleged by respondents, the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy
inquiry into the cause of commitment or detention will enable him to became moot and academic due to the death of the person allegedly
correct any errors or defects in the petition. 15 restrained of liberty, but the issue of custody remained, which the court a
quo had to resolve.
In Macazo and Nunez vs. Nunez, 16 the Court frowned upon the dismissal of
a habeas corpus petition filed by a brother to obtain custody of a minor Petitioner claims he is the spouse contemplated under Art. 294 of the Civil
sister, stating: Code, the term spouse used therein not being preceded by any
qualification; hence, in the absence of such qualification, he is the rightful
All these circumstances notwithstanding, we believe that the case should custodian of Vitaliana's body. Vitaliana's brothers and sisters contend
not have been dismissed. The court below should not have overlooked that otherwise. Indeed, Philippine Law does not recognize common law
by dismissing the petition, it was virtually sanctioning the continuance of an marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for many
adulterous and scandalous relation between the minor and her married years as husband and wife, who represent themselves to the public as
employer, respondent Benildo Nunez against all principles of law and husband and wife, and who are reputed to be husband and wife in the
morality. It is no excuse that the minor has expressed preference for community where they live may be considered legally mauled in common
remaining with said respondent, because the minor may not chose to law jurisdictions but not in the Philippines. 19
continue an illicit relation that morals and law repudiate.
While it is true that our laws do not just brush aside the fact that such
xxx xxx xxx relationships are present in our society, and that they produce a community
The minor's welfare being the paramount consideration, the court below of properties and interests which is governed by law, 20 authority exists in
should not allow the technicality, that Teofilo Macazo was not originally case law to the effect that such form of co-ownership requires that the man
made a party, to stand in the way of its giving the child full protection. Even and woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract
in a habeas corpus proceeding the court had power to award temporary marriage. 21 In any case, herein petitioner has a subsisting marriage with
custody to the petitioner herein, or some other suitable person, after another woman, a legal impediment which disqualified him from even
summoning and hearing all parties concerned. What matters is that the legally marrying Vitaliana. In Santero vs. CFI of Cavite, 22 ,the Court, thru Mr.
immoral situation disclosed by the records be not allowed to continue. 17 Justice Paras, interpreting Art. 188 of the Civil Code (Support of Surviving
Spouse and Children During Liquidation of Inventoried Property) stated: "Be
After the fact of Vitaliana's death was made known to the petitioners in it noted however that with respect to 'spouse', the same must be the
the habeas corpus proceedings, amendment  of the petition for habeas legitimate 'spouse' (not common-law spouses)."
corpus, not dismissal,  was proper to avoid multiplicity of suits. Amendments
to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally allowed in There is a view that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the term
furtherance of justice in order that every case may so far as possible be "spouse" embraces common law relation for purposes of exemption from
determined on its real facts and in order to expedite the trial of cases or criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief
prevent circuity of action and unnecessary expense, unless there are committed or caused mutually by spouses. The Penal Code article, it is said,
circumstances such as inexcusable delay or the taking of the adverse party makes no distinction between a couple whose cohabitation is sanctioned by
a sacrament or legal tie and another who are husband and wife de
facto.23 But this view cannot even apply to the facts of the case at bar. We
hold that the provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to the
contrary as in Article 144, when referring to a "spouse" contemplate a
lawfully wedded spouse. Petitioner vis-a-vis Vitaliana was not a lawfully-
wedded spouse to her; in fact, he was not legally capacitated to marry her in
her lifetime.

Custody of the dead body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to her

Sec. 1103. Persons charged with duty of burial.  — The immediate duty of

x x x           x x x          x x x

(b) If the deceased was an unmarried man or woman, or a child, and left any
kin, the duty of burial shall devolve upon the nearest of kin of the deceased,
if they be adults and within the Philippines and in possession of sufficient
means to defray the necessary expenses.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Both petitions are

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,

Gancayco and Grino-Aquino, JJ., are on leave.