G.R. No. L-14639 Case Digest

G.R. No.
L-14639 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919
Zacarias Villavicencion, et al., petitioners
vs Justo Lukban, et al., respondents
Ponente: Malcolm
Facts:
The Lukban as mayor of Manila ordered the segregated district for
women of ill repute be closed, for the purpose of exterminating
vices in the city. The women were kept confined to their houses by
the police while the city authorities made arrangements with the
bureau of labor for sending the women to Davao as laborers. Later
at midnight of October 25, the police, Anton Hohmann and the Mayor
descended upon the houses and placed them aboard the steamers. The
women were given no opportunity to collect their belongings and
thought that they would be brought to the police station for an
investigation. They have not been asked if they wish to depart from
the region and neither been asked of their consent for the
deportation.
Upon their arrival in Davao, the provincial governor of Davao had

no previous notification that the women were prostitutes who had
been expelled in the city of Manila. Then the relatives of the
deportees presented an application for habeas corpus to the SC. The
application alleged that the women were illegally deported by the
order of Lukban. Lukban and Hohman admitted certain facts but
prayed that the writ should not be granted because the petitioners
were not proper parties to the case that it should have begun in
Davao because the women are not in their custody now.
According to the fiscal attachment, the women were destined to be

laborers at good salaries on the hacienda of Ynigo and governor
sales. Fiscal also admitted that the deportation was without
consent of the women.
Issue: Did the Mayor and the Chief of Police presume to act in
deporting by duress these persons from Manila to another distant
locality within the Philippine Islands?
Held:
What are the remedies of the unhappy victims of official
oppression? The remedies of the citizen are three: (1) Civil
action; (2) criminal action, and (3) habeas corpus.
Granted that habeas corpus is the proper remedy, respondents have

raised three specific objections to its issuance in this instance.
The fiscal has argued (l) that there is a defect in parties
petitioners, (2) that the Supreme Court should not a assume
jurisdiction, and (3) that the person in question are not
restrained of their liberty by respondents. It was finally
suggested that the jurisdiction of the Mayor and the chief of
police of the city of Manila only extends to the city limits and
that perforce they could not bring the women from Davao.
(1) The petitioners were relatives and friends of the deportees.

The way the expulsion was conducted by the city officials made it
impossible for the women to sign a petition for habeas corpus. It
was consequently proper for the writ to be submitted by persons in
their behalf.
(2) It is a general rule of good practice that, to avoid

unnecessary expense and inconvenience, petitions for habeas corpus
should be presented to the nearest judge of the court of first
instance. But this is not a hard and fast rule. The writ of habeas
corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court or any judge thereof
enforceable anywhere in the Philippine Islands. Whether the writ
shall be made returnable before the Supreme Court or before an
inferior court rests in the discretion of the Supreme Court and is
dependent on the particular circumstances. In this instance it was
not shown that the Court of First Instance of Davao was in session
or that the women had any means by which to advance their plea
before that court.
(3) A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas

corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential object and purpose of
the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to
relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any
restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The
forcible taking of these women from Manila by officials of that
city, who handed them over to other parties, who deposited them in
a distant region, deprived these women of freedom of locomotion
just as effectively as if they had been imprisoned.

G.R. No. L-14639 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-14639 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-14639 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-14639 Case Digest

Upon their arrival in Davao, the provincial governor of Davao had

According to the fiscal attachment, the women were destined to be

Granted that habeas corpus is the proper remedy, respondents have

(1) The petitioners were relatives and friends of the deportees.

(2) It is a general rule of good practice that, to avoid

(3) A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.