TOMAS EUGENIO, SR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, DEPUTY SHERIFF JOHNSON TAN, JR., DEPUTY SHERI…

Eugenio versus Velez

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition brought by Tomas Eugenio against Judge Alejandro Velez, the presiding judge of a Regional Trial Court branch in Cagayan de Oro City, and against the deputy sheriff, to annul the writ and orders issued in a habeas corpus proceeding and to stop the surrender and autopsy of a dead body. At bottom the case is about who has the legal right to the corpse of Vitaliana Vargas: the man who lived with her as her common law husband, or her full blood brothers and sisters. It matters because the Supreme Court uses it to settle two enduring rules — that the allegations of the petition, not its caption, determine the nature of the action, and that the word spouse in our civil law means a lawfully wedded spouse, never a common law partner.

Procedural History

The Vargas brothers and sisters filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, in Cagayan de Oro City, alleging that Vitaliana was being forcibly confined by Eugenio. The trial court issued the writ, which was returned unsatisfied. Eugenio then filed an urgent motion to dismiss, arguing that a corpse cannot be the subject of habeas corpus. Before resolving that motion, the trial court allowed the petitioners to amend their petition to pray for custody and burial of the body. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that it retained jurisdiction because the allegations showed a dispute over custody of a dead body, and it later rendered a decision awarding custody to the brothers and sisters. Eugenio came to the Supreme Court twice: first by a petition for certiorari and prohibition, and later by a petition for review raising pure questions of law. The two petitions were consolidated, and the Court decided them together.

Facts

Vitaliana Vargas, twenty five years old, single, lived with Tomas Eugenio, who was himself legally married to another woman. Sometime in 1987 she was allegedly taken from her residence and confined in Eugenio's residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. Unknown to her brothers and sisters, she died on 28 August 1988 of heart failure due to toxemia of pregnancy.

On 27 September 1988, still unaware of her death, the Vargas brothers and sisters filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging that Vitaliana was being deprived of her liberty without legal authority. The trial court issued the writ on 28 September 1988, but Eugenio refused to surrender the body, reasoning that a corpse cannot be the subject of habeas corpus and that he had a burial permit from the Undersecretary of the Department of Health authorizing burial at the quadrangle of the Philippine Benevolent Christian Missionary, Inc., of which he was Supreme President and Founder. He claimed custody as her common law husband.

The trial court issued orders on 29 and 30 September 1988 directing delivery of the body to a funeral parlor in Cagayan de Oro City and its autopsy. The body was transferred to the Greenhills Memorial Homes and examined by a government pathologist. The Vargas siblings then amended their petition, invoking the Civil Code provisions on burial, and the trial court, treating the case as one for custody of a dead body, ruled in their favor.

Issues

• Whether or not a habeas corpus proceeding under Rule 102 is the proper remedy to recover custody of the dead body of a twenty five year old single woman whose surviving claimants are her full blood brothers and sisters and a common law husband.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the proceedings and the authority to treat the action as one for custody and burial of the deceased.
• Whether or not the term spouse in the order of support under the Civil Code includes a common law husband, so as to entitle him to custody of the body.

Applicable Provisions

Article 305 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This fixes the order of preference for funeral arrangements by reference to the order of support, which is the very hierarchy the Court applies to choose between the siblings and the common law husband.

Article 308 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This confirms that only the persons named in the support and funeral provisions may lawfully dispose of human remains.

Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

Sec. 1103. Persons charged with duty of burial. - The immediate duty of burying the body of a deceased person, regardless of the ultimate liability for the expense thereof, shall devolve upon the persons hereinbelow specified: (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.

Because Vitaliana was unmarried and left kin, the duty of burial devolved upon her nearest of kin, meaning her brothers and sisters.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the habeas corpus remedy became moot and academic upon Vitaliana's death, but the issue of custody remained, and amendment of the petition rather than dismissal was proper to avoid multiplicity of suits. Amendments to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally allowed in furtherance of justice.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Regional Trial Court did not lose jurisdiction. What controls is not the caption of the petition but the allegations therein, which determine the nature of the action, and even without a prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may be granted if the facts alleged and the evidence warrant it. The Court also noted that when the petition was filed it was not certain whether Vitaliana was dead or alive, and that a judge asked to issue a writ of habeas corpus need not be very critical in examining the petition.

On the third issue, the Court held that the term spouse in the Civil Code contemplates a lawfully wedded spouse. Philippine law does not recognize common law marriages, and Eugenio had a subsisting marriage to another woman, a legal impediment that disqualified him from legally marrying Vitaliana. Custody was therefore correctly awarded to the surviving brothers and sisters under Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Doctrine

First, the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the petition, not by its caption, and the court may grant the proper relief warranted by the facts even absent a specific prayer. Second, the word spouse in the Civil Code, unless expressly provided otherwise, means a lawfully wedded spouse and excludes a common law partner. Third, the duty and right to bury an unmarried deceased person who left kin devolves upon the nearest of kin under Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code, following the order of support under Article 294 in relation to Articles 305 and 308 of the Civil Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, dismissed both petitions, and awarded no costs, leaving custody of Vitaliana's body with her surviving brothers and sisters.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the caption does not control; the allegations determine the nature of the action, and spouse in the Civil Code means a lawfully wedded spouse. Examiners use this case on jurisdiction over the subject matter, on the liberal allowance of amendments, and on the civil law rules governing custody and burial of the dead.