Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eugenio v. Velez
Eugenio v. Velez
*
G.R. No. 85140. May 17, 1990.
_______________
* EN BANC.
426
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
427
legal tie and another who are husband and wife de facto. 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.
Burials; Right to bury a dead person does not include a
commonlaw husband who is still married.—Custody of the dead
body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to her surviving brothers
and sisters (the Vargases).
PADILLA, J.:
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
428
_______________
(a) x x x
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action or
suit;
429
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
and 305.
4 Record of RTC Proceedings, pp. 296-297.
5 Ibid., p. 338.
430
“It should be noted from the original petition, to the first amended
1petition, up to the second amended petition that the ultimate
facts show that if the person of Vitaliana Vargas turns out to be
dead then this Court is being prayed to declare the petitioners as
the persons entitled to the custody, interment and/or burial of the
body of said deceased. The Court, considering the circumstance
that Vitaliana Vargas was already dead on August 28, 1988 but
only revealed to the Court on September 29, 1988 by respondent’s
counsel, did not lose jurisdiction over the nature and subject
matter of this case because it may entertain this case thru the
allegations in the body of the petition on the determination as to
who is entitled to the custody of the dead body of the late
Vitaliana Vargas as well as the burial or interment thereof, for
the reason that under the provisions of Sec. 19 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, which reads as follows:
_______________
431
_______________
7 Supra.
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.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
432
‘ART. 294. The claim for support, when proper and two or more persons
are obliged to give it, shall be made in the following order:
(1) From the spouse;
xxx’
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
_______________
433
_______________
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.
15 Ibid., §130.
16 G.R. No. L-12772, 24 January 1959, 105 Phil. 55.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
434
court below should not allow the technicality, that Teofilo Macazo
was not originally made a party, to stand in the way of its giving
the child full protection. Even in a habeas corpus proceeding the
court had power to award temporary custody to the petitioner
herein, or some other suitable person, after summoning and
hearing all parties concerned. What matters is that the immoral17
situation disclosed by the records be not allowed to continue.”
_______________
17 Ibid.
18 PNB vs. CA, G.R. No. L-45770, 30 March 1988, 159 SCRA 933.
19 Fiel vs. Banawa, No. 56284-R, March 26, 1979, 76 OG 619.
435
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
_______________
436
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
10/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
———o0o———
437
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754e8b02b7f69bbeb0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12