Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=30505:g-r-nos-85140-amp-86470-may-17,-1990-tomas-eugenio,-sr-v-alejandro-m-velez,-et-al&amp;catid=1263&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:28:41+00:00

Document:
TOMAS EUGENIO, SR., Petitioner, v. HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, DEPUTY SHERIFF JOHNSON TAN, JR., Deputy 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 Corpus", namely: CRISANTA VARGAS-SANCHEZ, RAYMUNDO VARGAS, ERNESTO VARGAS, NATIVIDAD VARGAS-CAGAPE, NENITA VARGAS-CADENAS, LUDIVINA VARGAS-DE LOS SANTOS and NARCISA VARGAS-BENTULAN, Respondents.
TOMAS EUGENIO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, CRISANTA VARGAS-SANCHEZ, FELIX VARGAS, ERNESTO VARGAS, NATIVIDAD VARGAS-CAGAPE, NENITA VARGAS-CADENAS, LUDIVINA VARGAS-DE LOS SANTOS and NARCISA VARGAS-BENTULAN, Respondents-Appellees.
Maximo G. Rodriguez for Petitioner.
Erasmo B. Damasing and Oliver Asis Improso for Respondents.
Unaware of the death on 28 August 1988 of Vitaliana Vargas (Vitaliana, for brevity), her full blood brothers and sisters, herein private respondents (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) alleging that Vitaliana was forcibly taken from her residence sometime in 1987 and confined by herein petitioner in his palacial residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. Despite her desire to escape, Vitaliana was allegedly deprived of her liberty without any legal authority. At the time the petition was filed, it was alleged that Vitaliana was 25 years of age, single, and living with petitioner Tomas Eugenio.
The respondent court in an order dated 28 September 1988 issued the writ of habeas corpus, but the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner refused to surrender the body of Vitaliana (who had died on 28 August 1988) to the respondent sheriff, reasoning that a corpse cannot be the subject of habeas corpus proceedings; besides, according to petitioner, he had already obtained a burial permit from the Undersecretary of the Department of 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.
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, petitioner claimed legal custody of her body. These reasons were incorporated in an explanation filed before the respondent court. Two (2) orders dated 29 and 30 September 1988 were then issued by respondent court, directing delivery of the deceased’s body to a funeral parlor in Cagayan de Oro City and its autopsy.
Petitioner (as respondent in the habeas corpus proceedings) filed an urgent 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 sec. 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court. 1 A special proceeding for habeas corpus, petitioner argued, is not applicable to a dead person but extends only to all cases of illegal confinement or detention of a live person.
Before resolving the motion to dismiss, private respondents (as petitioners 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 the filing of the habeas corpus petition), private respondents (Vargases) alleged that petitioner Tomas Eugenio, who is not in any way related to Vitaliana was wrongfully interferring with their (Vargases’) duty to bury her. Invoking Arts. 305 and 308 of the Civil Code, 3 the Vargases contended that, as the next of kin in the Philippines, they are the legal custodians of the dead body of their sister Vitaliana. An exchange of pleadings followed. The motion to dismiss was finally submitted for resolution on 21 October 1988.
On 23 January 1989, a new petition for review with application for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction was filed with this Court (G.R. No. 86470). Raised therein were pure questions of law, basically identical to those raised in the earlier petition (G.R. No. 85140); 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 quo pending appeal, which this Court denied in a resolution dated 23 February 1989 stating that "Tomas Eugenio has so far failed to sufficiently establish a clear legal right to the custody of the dead body of Vitaliana Vargas, which now needs a decent burial." The petitions were then submitted for decision without further pleadings.
Between the two (2) consolidated petitions, the following issues are raised:.
1.	propriety of a habeas corpus proceeding under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court to recover custody of the dead body of a 25 year old female, single, whose nearest surviving claimants are full blood brothers and sisters and a common law husband.
2.	jurisdiction of the RTC over such proceedings and/or its authority to treat the action as one for custody/possession/authority to bury the deceased/recovery of the dead.
"All these circumstances notwithstanding, we believe that the case should not have been dismissed. The court below should not have overlooked that by dismissing the petition, it was virtually sanctioning the continuance of an adulterous and scandalous relation between the minor and her married employer, respondent Benildo Nuñez, against all principles of law and morality. It is no excuse that the minor has expressed preference for remaining with said respondent, because the minor may not chose to continue an illicit relation that morals and law repudiate.
There is a view that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the term "spouse" embraces common law relation for purposes of exemption from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses. The Penal Code article, it is said, 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.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Both petitions are hereby DISMISSED. No Costs.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., are on leave.
*	Hon. Alejandro Velez, presiding.
Rule 72 (Subject Matter and Applicability of General Rules).
SECTION 2.	Applicability of rules of civil actions. — In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings.
2.	3 and 11 October 1988 orders, Record of Regional Trial Court Proceedings, pp. 74, 75 & 102.
3.	ART. 305. The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the order established for support, under article 294. In case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternal shall have a better right.
ART. 308.	No human remains shall be retained, interred, disposed of or exhumed without the consent of the persons mentioned in Articles 294 and 305.
4.	Record of RTC Proceedings, pp. 296-297.
6.	Record of RTC Proceedings, p. 577.
8.	Sec. 5 — Inherent power of courts; Sec. 6 - means to carry jurisdiction into effect.
9.	Sec. 1104. Right of custody to body - Any person charged by law with the duty of burying the body of a deceased person is entitled to the custody of such body for the purpose of burying it, except when an inquest is required by law for the purpose of determining the cause of death; and, in case of death due to or accompanied by a dangerous communicable disease, such body shall until buried remain in the custody of the local board of health or local health officer, or if there be no such, then in the custody of the municipal council.
10.	G.R. No. 86470, Rollo at 34.
11.	Annexes 7 & 8, Petition, G.R. No. 85140, Rollo at 85 and 86.
12.	Resolution of 26 January 1989, G.R. No. 85140, Rollo at 114.
13.	Ras v. Sua, G.R. No. L-23302, September 25, 1968, 25 SCRA 158-159; Nactor v. IAC, G.R. No. 74122, March 15, 1988, 158 SCRA 635.
14.	39 Am. Jur., 2d, Habeas Corpus §129.
16.	G.R. No. L-12772, 24 January 1959, 105 Phil. 55.
18.	PNB v. CA, G.R. No. L-45770, 30 March 1988, 159 SCRA 933.
19.	Fiel v. Banawa, No. 56284-R, March 26, 1979, 76 OG 619.
When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
21.	Aznar, Et. Al. v. Garcia, Et Al., G.R. Nos. L-11483-84, 14 February 1958, 102 Phil. 1055.
22.	G.R. Nos. 61700-03, September 24, 1987, 153 SCRA 728.
23.	People v. Constantino, No. 01897-CR, September 6, 1963, 60 O.G. 3603.

References: v. 
 v. 
	ART. 305

ART. 308
 v. 
 v. 
 §129
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.