Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

FACTS:

Vitaliana Vargas a 25-year old whho was forcibly taken from her residence sometime
in 1987 and was confined by the petitioner, Tomas Eugenio in his palacial residence
in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. She cohabited with the petitioner against her will and
always had the intention of escaping. She died of heart failure due to toxemia of
pregnancy in Eugenios residence on Aug. 28, 1988. Petitioner claimed the legal
custody of her body as her common law husband. Unaware of her death, her
brothers and sisters filed a petition for Habeas Corpus on September 27, 1988
before the RTC of Misamis Oriental (a month after Vitaliana's death). The court then
issued a writ of habeas corpus but petitioner refused to surrender the Vitalianas
body to the sheriff on the ground that a corpse cannot be subjected to habeas
corpus proceedings. According to petitioner, he had already obtained a burial permit
from the USEC of health authorizing the burial at the palace quadrangle of the
Philippine Benevolent Christian Missionary, Inc which petitioner was Supreme
President and Founder. Petitioner then filed for a motion to dismiss the habeas
corpus, claiming lack of jurisdiction of the court over the nature of action.

A special proceeding for habeas corpus is not applicable to a dead person but
extends only to all cases of illegal confinement or detention of a live person.

Sec. 19.
Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:

(1)
In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
(5)

In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;

(6)
In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person
or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions:

Respondents claim that Eugenio which is not related in any way to Vitaliana was
wrongfully interfering on their duties to bury her. (Art. 305 and 308 of the civil
code). Vargases contended that they are the legal custodians of the dead body of
their sister.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner can claim custody of the deceased and if RTC has
jurisdiction over proceedings over custody/possession/authority/to bury the
deceased/recovery of the dead.

HELD:

The court held that the custody of the dead body of Vitaliana was valid and legal to
the surviving brothers and sisters pursuant to Section 1103 of the Revised
Administrative Code which provides:

Persons charged with duty of burial- The immediate duty if burying the body of a
deceased person, regardless of the ultimate liability expense thereof, shall devolve
upon the persons herein below specified:

Petitioner claims he is the spouse as contemplated under Art. 294 of the Civil Code,
Philippine law does not recognize common law marriages where a man and a
woman not legally married who cohabit for many years 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 community where they live may be considered legally
mauled in common law jurisdictions in the Philippines. In addition, it requires that
the man and woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to
contract marriage. Whereas, the petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another
woman, legal impediment that disqualified him from even legally marrying
Vitaliana. In any case, herein petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another
woman, a legal impediment which disqualified him for even legally marrying
Vitaliana.

Вам также может понравиться