POLICARPIO REAL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. JESSIE TROUTHMAN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

Real versus Trouthman

The Case

This is a petition for the writ of habeas corpus brought by a father, Policarpio Real, against Jessie Trouthman, the married man who, he alleged, had taken his daughter Lilian from the parental home. The father did not sue for damages in the ordinary sense; he asked the court to order the production of his daughter and, after hearing, to command her return to him, on the theory that a daughter below twenty-three years of age cannot leave the parental home without parental consent. The case matters because it fixes the outer age limit of that parental right under the Civil Code, and because it shows what a court does with a habeas corpus petition when the very fact that gave the petitioner his standing has, by the time of decision, disappeared.

Procedural History

Policarpio Real, litigating as a pauper, filed the petition for habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The court ordered Trouthman to appear and to produce Lilian Real. Trouthman complied, and upon the court's verbal order filed his answer, to which he attached Lilian's affidavit stating that she had left home voluntarily. After hearing, the trial court found that Lilian had reached the age of majority and that the respondent was not detaining her or restraining her liberty; it dismissed the petition. The father appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in May 1967.

Facts

On the sixth of May, 1964, Lilian Real left the home of her parents and went to live with Jessie Trouthman, a married man. Her father alleged that Trouthman had persuaded her to elope by means of deceit, force, threats, intimidation and misrepresentation, without the knowledge and consent of her parents, and that she had since then been detained and prevented from returning to him.

On the twenty-second of May, 1964, the father filed his petition for habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Trouthman produced Lilian before the court as ordered and filed his answer, alleging that she went with him voluntarily and that at the police station, in the presence of her parents, she herself explained that she had left home of her own will, so that the police considered the case closed. Lilian's own affidavit to the same effect was attached to the answer.

After hearing, the trial court found that Lilian Real had attained the age of majority on the sixteenth of May, 1964; that the respondent was not detaining her, nor restraining her liberty or freedom, nor preventing her from returning to her parents; and that she had manifested, during the trial and afterwards in a conference held for a possible amicable settlement, that she joined the respondent freely and voluntarily and was not willing to go back to her parents. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the father appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not a daughter who has already attained the age of majority may still be compelled, at the instance of her parents, to return to the parental home through a writ of habeas corpus.
• Whether or not the father is entitled to the writ where the evidence shows that his daughter left the parental home freely and voluntarily and is not being detained by the respondent.
• Whether or not the petition has become moot and academic by the time the case reached the Supreme Court.

Applicable Provisions

Article 403 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 403. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article, a daughter above twenty-one but below twenty-three years of age cannot leave the parental home without the consent of the father or mother in whose company she lives, except to become a wife, or when she exercises a profession or calling, or when the father or mother has contracted a subsequent marriage.

This is the very provision on which the father anchored his right to demand his daughter's return, and its age brackets define the whole controversy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the father's claim had lost its legal basis. The protection of Article 403 extends only to a daughter above twenty-one but below twenty-three years of age. The Court noted that as of 1967, Lilian Real was already more than twenty-four years of age and hence unquestionably beyond the coverage of the article. The Court put the matter plainly:

We are left with no other alternative but to order the dismissal, because as of now, 1967, Lilian Real is already more than 24 years of age and hence is unquestionably beyond the coverage of Article 403.

On the second issue, the findings of the trial court stood: the respondent was not detaining Lilian, was not restraining her liberty or freedom, and was not preventing her from returning to her parents; she had freely and voluntarily joined him and was unwilling to return home. Habeas corpus lies to relieve a person from unlawful detention, and here there was no detention to relieve.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petition had become moot and academic. The passage of time had removed the daughter from the reach of the article invoked, so that no live controversy remained for the Court to resolve.

Doctrine

First, the right of parents to keep a daughter in the parental home under Article 403 of the Civil Code is strictly bounded by age: it covers a daughter above twenty-one but below twenty-three years of age, and it ceases once she passes that upper limit. Second, the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy against unlawful detention; where the evidence shows that the person whose liberty is in question left voluntarily and is under no restraint, the writ will not issue. Third, a case becomes moot and academic when a supervening event, here the daughter's passing beyond the age fixed by statute, removes the legal basis of the petition, and the Court will dismiss it on that ground.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus on the ground that it had become moot and academic, without costs; the respondent prevailed.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that the parental right under Article 403 of the Civil Code runs only while the daughter is above twenty-one but below twenty-three years of age, and beyond that age the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to bring her home. Examiners use this case to test the age coverage of Article 403 and the doctrine of moot and academic in habeas corpus proceedings.