Enriquez vs Velez
185 SCRA 45 | May 17, 1990
J. Padilla
Facts:
Unaware of the death of Vitaliana Vargas, Respondent Siblings of the latter filed for petition of
Habeas Corpuz alleging that Vitaliana was forcibly taken from her residence and confined by Petitioner
in his palacial residence. Despite her desire to escape, Vitaliana was allegedly deprived of her liberty
without any legal authority. At the time
t ime the petition was filed, it was alleged that Vitaliana was 25 years
of age, single, and living with petitioner Eugenio.
The court then issued a writ of habeas corpus but petitioner refused to surrender the Vitaliana’s
body to the sheriff on the ground that a corpse cannot be subjected to habeas corpus proceedings.
Vitaliana, 25 year old single, died of
o f heart failure due to toxemia of pregnancy in Eugenio’s residence.
The court ordered that the body should be delivered to a funeral parlor for autopsy but Eugenio assailed
the lack of jurisdiction of the court.
Petitioner claims he is Vitaliana’s husband under the Common Law Marriage.
Issue:
Does Respondent have right to invoke Habeas Corpus and claim of Vitaliana’s body?
Held:
Yes, Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. 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
t he deceased.
Custody of the dead body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to her surviving brothers and sister.