EUGENIO vs.

VELEZ
GR No. 851140 – May 17, 1990
Padilla

SUBJECT: Legal custody of deceased’s body.

FACTS:
 Unaware of the death of Vitaliana Vargas on August of 1988, her full blood brother &
sisters, herein PRs, filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC alleging that
Vitaliana was forcibly taken from her residence and confined by herein petitioner.
 Despite her desire escape, Vitaliana was allegedly deprived of her liberty without
any legal authority.
 At the time the petition was filed, it was alleged that Vitaliana was 25yo, single and
living with petitioner, Tomas Eugenio.
 Petitioner refused to surrender the body of Vitaliana to the respondent sheriff.
 As her common law husband, petitioner claimed legal custody of her body.
 PRs alleged that petitioner who is not in any way related to Vitaliana was wrongfully
interfering with their duty to bury her. They invoked Arts. 308 of the CC, contending
that, as the next of kin in the Philippines, they are the legal custodians of the dead
body of their sister Vitaliana.
 Petitioner claims he is the spouse contemplated under Art. 294 of the CC, the term
spouse used therein not being preceded by any qualification; hence, in the absence
of such qualification, he is the rightful custodian of Vitaliana’s body.

ISSUE:
(1) WON the petitioner can be considered as a spouse of Vitaliana
(2) WON the petitioner can claim custody of the deceased.

HELD:
(1) NO
There is a view that under Art. 332 of the RPC, the term “spouse” embraces common law
relation for purposes of exemption from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling &
malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses. The Penal Code article makes
no distinction between a couple whose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament or 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. The court holds that the
provisions of the CC, unless expressly providing to the contrary as in Art. 144, when
referring to a “spouse” contemplate a lawfully wedded spouse. Petitioner vis-à -vis Vitaliana
was not lawfully wedded spouses; in fact, he was not legally capacitated to marry her in her
lifetime. Custody of the dead body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to her surviving
brothers and sisters.

A man and a woman not legally married who cohabit for many years as husband and wife,
who represented themselves to the public as h&w, and who are reputed to be h&w in the
community where they live may be considered legally “married” in common law
jurisdiction but not in the Philippines. Right to bury a dead person does not include a
common law husband who is still married.

(2) NO
The custody of the dead body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to the surviving brothers
and sisters pursuant to Section 1103 of the Revised Admin. Code which provides that:
“Persons charged with duty of burial – if the deceased was an unmarried man or woman or
a child and left any kin; the duty of the burial shall devolve upon the nearest kin of the
deceased. Albeit, petitioner claims he is the spouses as contemplated under Art. 294 of the
CC, Philippines laws 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 addition, it requires that the man and a woman living together must not in any way be
incapacitated to contract marriage. Whereas, the petitioner has a subsisting marriage with
another woman, which is a legal impediment that disqualified him from even legally
marrying Vitaliana.