Substantive Due Process

14- Villavicencio vs. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919
G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919 ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. vs. JUSTO
LUKBAN, ET AL.

In 1918, the mayor of Manila had 170 "women of ill repute" forcibly rounded up, put on a
ship, and sent to Davao as laborers. A writ of habeas corpus was filed against him. The
Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the
fundamental right not to be forced to change their place of residence. This case justifies
one of the basic rights of citizen, the right of domain.

Facts:

Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's Chief of

m
er as
Police, took custody of about 170 women at the night of October 25 beyond the latters
consent and knowledge and thereafter were shipped to Mindanao specifically in Davao

co
eH w
where they were signed as laborers. Said women are inmates of the houses of
prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.

o.
rs e
He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work for an
ou urc
haciendero Feliciano Ynigo. The prostitutes were confined in houses from October 16 to
18 of that year before being boarded, at the dead of night, in two boats bound for
Davao. The women were under the assumption that they were being transported to
o

another police station while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea that the
aC s

women being sent to work for him were actually prostitutes. The families of the
vi y re

prostitutes came forward to file charges against Lukban, Anton Hohmann, the Chief of
Police, and Francisco Sales, the Governor of Davao.
ed d

They prayed for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued against the respondents to compel
ar stu

them to bring back the 170 women who were deported to Mindanao against their will.
During the trial, it came out that, indeed, the women were deported without their
consent. In effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile. Most of all, there was
is

no law or order authorizing Lukban's deportation of the 170prostitutes.

Th

That when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus, the respondent moved to dismiss the
case saying that those women were already out of their jurisdiction and that , it should
be filed in the city of Davao instead.
sh

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructions;

For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional courses were open:
(1) They could have produced the bodies of the persons according to the command of

This study source was downloaded by 100000824476553 from CourseHero.com on 06-27-2021 06:06:07 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62286233/14-Villavicencio-vs-Lukbandocx/
 the writ; or (2) they could have shown by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity
those persons could not safely be brought before the court; or (3) they could have
presented affidavits to show that the parties in question or their attorney waived the right
to be present.

Issue:

The writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner, with the prayer that the
respondent produce around 170 women whom Justo Lukban et, al deported to Davao.
Liberty of abode was also raised versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in
deporting the women without their knowledge in his capacity as Mayor.

Held:

The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum of 400 pesos

m
er as
each, plus 100 pesos for nominal damage due to contempt of court. Reasoning further
that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally

co
eH w
take a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and
then, when called upon to defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and

o.
claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction
over this other municipality. rs e
ou urc
We believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the jurisdiction of
the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the
o

wrong that he has inflicted, he should be compelled to do so. Even if the party to whom
aC s

the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the
vi y re

application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the mayor and the
chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the city
of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return
them from Davao to Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be
ed d

permitted to restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile
ar stu

and to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her
birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not thus be
easily evaded.
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000824476553 from CourseHero.com on 06-27-2021 06:06:07 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62286233/14-Villavicencio-vs-Lukbandocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)