Eugenio v. Velez, 185 SCRA 425
Eugenio v. Velez, 185 SCRA 425
*
G.R. No. 85140. May 17, 1990.
_______________
* EN BANC.
426
is not the caption of the complaint or petition; but the allegations therein
determine the nature of the action, and even without the prayer for a specific
remedy, proper relief may nevertheless be granted by the court if the facts
alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant.
Same; Habeas Corpus; Pleadings; Where subject of habeas corpus
dies, the petition may be merely amended to raise the issue of custody; No
separate action necessary.—After the fact of Vitaliana’s death was made
known to the petitioners in the habeas corpus proceedings, amendment of
the petition for habeas corpus, not dismissal, was proper to avoid
multiplicity of suits. Amendments to pleadings are generally favored and
should be liberally allowed in furtherance of justice in order that every case
may so far as possible be determined on its real facts and in order to
expedite the trial of cases or prevent circuity of action and unnecessary
expense, unless there are circumstances such as inexcusable delay or the
taking of the adverse party by surprise or the like, which justify a refusal of
permission to amend. As correctly alleged by respondents, the writ of
habeas corpus as a remedy became moot and academic due to the death of
the person allegedly restrained of liberty, but the issue of custody remained,
which the court a quo had to resolve.
Words and Phrases; Husband and Wife; Burials; Under the Civil Code,
the term “spouse” refers to “married” couples, not common-law ones.—
Petitioner claims he is the spouse contemplated under Art. 294 of the Civil
Code, 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. Vitaliana’s brothers and sisters contend otherwise. Indeed,
Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. A man and
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 “married” in common law jurisdictions but not in the
Philippines.
Same; Same; Same; Criminal Law; “Spouse” in the Criminal Code
embraces “common-law” relations.—There is a view that under Article 332
of the Revised Penal Code, the term “spouse” embraces common law
relation for purposes of exemption from criminal liability in cases of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by
spouses. The Penal Code article, it is said, makes no distinction between a
couple whose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament or
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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
PADILLA, J.:
_______________
428
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
_______________
(a) x x x
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action or suit;
429
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
_______________
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:
‘Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.—Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
x x x x x x x x x
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person
or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions:
x x x x x x x x x
_______________
431
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
_______________
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.
10 G.R. No. 86470, Rollo at 34.
11 Annexes 7 & 8, Petition, G.R. No. 85140, Rollo at 85 and 86.
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’
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
Section 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides for the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts over civil cases.
Under Sec. 2, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ of habeas
corpus may be granted by a Court of First Instance (now Regional
Trial Court). It is an elementary rule of procedure that what controls
is not the caption of the complaint or petition; but the allegations
therein determine the nature of the action, and even without the
prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may
_______________
433
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
_______________
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.
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 immoral situation disclosed by the records be not allowed to
17
continue.”
After the fact of Vitaliana’s death was made known to the petitioners
in the habeas corpus proceedings, amendment of the petition for
habeas corpus, not dismissal, was proper to avoid multiplicity of
suits. Amendments to pleadings are generally favored and should be
liberally allowed in furtherance of justice in order that every case
may so far as possible be determined on its real facts and in order to
expedite the trial of cases or prevent circuity of action and
unnecessary expense, unless there are circumstances such as
inexcusable delay or the taking of the adverse party by surprise or
18
the like, which justify a refusal of permission to amend. As
correctly alleged by respondents, the writ of habeas corpus as a
remedy became moot and academic due to the death of the person
allegedly restrained of liberty, but the issue of custody remained,
which the court a quo had to resolve.
Petitioner claims he is the spouse contemplated under Art. 294 of
the Civil Code, 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. Vitaliana’s brothers and
sisters contend otherwise. Indeed, Philippine Law does not
recognize common law marriages. A man and 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 19
“married” in common law jurisdictions
but not in the Philippines.
While it is true that our laws do not just brush aside the fact
_______________
17 Ibid.
18 PNB vs. CA, G.R. No. L-45770, 30 March 1988, 159 SCRA 933.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
19 Fiel vs. Banawa, No. 56284-R, March 26, 1979, 76 OG 619.
435
that such relationships are present in our society, and that they
produce a community of properties and interests which is governed
20
by law, authority exists in case law to the effect that such form of
co-ownership requires that the man and woman living21together must
not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. In any case,
herein petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another woman, a
legal impediment which disqualified him22 from even legally marrying
Vitaliana. In Santero vs. CFI of Cavite, the Court, thru Mr. Justice
Paras, interpreting Art. 188 of the Civil Code (Support of Surviving
Spouse and Children During Liquidation of Inventoried Property)
stated: “Be it noted however that with respect to ‘spouse’, the same
must be the ‘legitimate spouse’ (not common-law spouses . . .).”
There is a view that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code,
the term “spouse” embraces common law relation for purposes of
exemption from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses. The
Penal Code article, it is said, makes no distinction between a couple
whose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament23
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. 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.
_______________
436
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
10/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 185
———o0o———
437
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001662f6083ff9e5857dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11