Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2008 > January 2008 Decisions > G.R. No. 169482 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HABEAS-CORPUS OF EUFEMIA RODIGUEZ ETC. v. LUISA R. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.:




G.R. No. 169482 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HABEAS-CORPUS OF EUFEMIA RODIGUEZ ETC. v. LUISA R. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 169482 - January 29, 2008]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS OF EUFEMIA E. RODRIGUEZ, filed by EDGARDO E. VELUZ, Petitioner, v. LUISA R. VILLANUEVA and TERESITA R. PABELLO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review 1 of the resolutions2 dated February 2, 2005 and September 2, 2005 of the Court of Appeals3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 88180 denying the petition for habeas corpus of Eufemia E. Rodriguez, filed by petitioner Edgardo Veluz, as well as his motion for reconsideration, respectively.

Eufemia E. Rodriguez was a 94-year old widow, allegedly suffering from a poor state of mental health and deteriorating cognitive abilities.4 She was living with petitioner, her nephew, since 2000. He acted as her guardian.

In the morning of January 11, 2005, respondents Luisa R. Villanueva and Teresita R. Pabello took Eufemia from petitioner Veluz' house. He made repeated demands for the return of Eufemia but these proved futile. Claiming that respondents were restraining Eufemia of her liberty, he filed a petition for habeas corpus5 in the Court of Appeals on January 13, 2005.

The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner failed to present any convincing proof that respondents (the legally adopted children of Eufemia) were unlawfully restraining their mother of her liberty. He also failed to establish his legal right to the custody of Eufemia as he was not her legal guardian. Thus, in a resolution dated February 2, 2005,6 the Court of Appeals denied his petition.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was also denied.7 Hence, this petition.

Petitioner claims that, in determining whether or not a writ of habeas corpus should issue, a court should limit itself to determining whether or not a person is unlawfully being deprived of liberty. There is no need to consider legal custody or custodial rights. The writ of habeas corpus is available not only if the rightful custody of a person is being withheld from the person entitled thereto but also if the person who disappears or is illegally being detained is of legal age and is not under guardianship. Thus, a writ of habeas corpus can cover persons who are not under the legal custody of another. According to petitioner, as long as it is alleged that a person is being illegally deprived of liberty, the writ of habeas corpus may issue so that his physical body may be brought before the court that will determine whether or not there is in fact an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

In their comment, respondents state that they are the legally adopted daughters of Eufemia and her deceased spouse, Maximo Rodriguez. Prior to their adoption, respondent Luisa was Eufemia's half-sister8 while respondent Teresita was Eufemia's niece and petitioner's sister.9

Respondents point out that it was petitioner and his family who were staying with Eufemia, not the other way around as petitioner claimed. Eufemia paid for the rent of the house, the utilities and other household needs.

Sometime in the 1980s, petitioner was appointed as the "encargado" or administrator of the properties of Eufemia as well as those left by the deceased Maximo. As such, he took charge of collecting payments from tenants and transacted business with third persons for and in behalf of Eufemia and the respondents who were the only compulsory heirs of the late Maximo.

In the latter part of 2002, Eufemia and the respondents demanded an inventory and return of the properties entrusted to petitioner. These demands were unheeded. Hence, Eufemia and the respondents were compelled to file a complaint for estafa against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Consequently, and by reason of their mother's deteriorating health, respondents decided to take custody of Eufemia on January 11, 2005. The latter willingly went with them. In view of all this, petitioner failed to prove either his right to the custody of Eufemia or the illegality of respondents' action.

We rule for the respondents.

The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of a person is being withheld from the one entitled thereto.10 It is issued when one is either deprived of liberty or is wrongfully being prevented from exercising legal custody over another person.11 Thus, it contemplates two instances: (1) deprivation of a person's liberty either through illegal confinement or through detention and (2) withholding of the custody of any person from someone entitled to such custody.

In this case, the issue is not whether the custody of Eufemia is being rightfully withheld from petitioner but whether Eufemia is being restrained of her liberty. Significantly, although petitioner admits that he did not have legal custody of Eufemia, he nonetheless insists that respondents themselves have no right to her custody. Thus, for him, the issue of legal custody is irrelevant. What is important is Eufemia's personal freedom.

Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus,the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.12

In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpusis to determine whether or not a particular person is legally held. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus,in fact, is an actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty. "The writ of habeas corpuswas devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpusis restraint of liberty. The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpusis to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient."13 (emphasis supplied)

In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court or judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is being restrained of his liberty.14 If he is not, the writ will be refused. Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed only where such restraint exists.15 If the alleged cause is thereafter found to be unlawful, then the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged.16 Needless to state, if otherwise, again the writ will be refused.

While habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as a matter of course or as a mere perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition.17 Judicial discretion is called for in its issuance and it must be clear to the judge to whom the petition is presented that, prima facie, the petitioner is entitled to the writ.18 It is only if the court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty will the petition for habeas corpus be granted.19 If the respondents are not detaining or restraining the applicant or the person in whose behalf the petition is filed, the petition should be dismissed.20

In this case, the Court of Appeals made an inquiry into whether Eufemia was being restrained of her liberty. It found that she was not:

There is no proof that Eufemia is being detained and restrained of her liberty by respondents. Nothing on record reveals that she was forcibly taken by respondents. On the contrary, respondents, being Eufemia's adopted children, are taking care of her.21 (emphasis supplied)

The Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to disturb this finding.22

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:


1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios (deceased) and Amelita G. Tolentino concurring. Rollo, pp. 24-27 and 36-39, respectively.

3 Tenth Division.

4 She was allegedly diagnosed with probable vascular dementia.

5 It was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88180.

6 Supra note 2, pp. 24-27.

7 Id., pp. 36-39.

8 Eufemia and respondent Luisa have the same father.

9 Petitioner and respondent Teresita are the children of the spouses Justo Veluz and Socorro Eleazar, Eufemia's sister.

10 Section 1, Rule 102 (Habeas Corpus), Rules of Court.

11 Ilusorio v. Bildner, 387 Phil. 915 (2000).

12 Sombong v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 737 (1996).

13 Id., citing Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919).

14 Gonzales v. Viola, 61 Phil. 824 (1925).

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Eugenio, Sr. v. Velez, G.R. NOS. 85140/86470, 17 May 1980, 185 SCRA 468.

18 Id.

19 Gonzales v. Viola, supra.

20 Ngaya-an v. Balweg, G.R. No. 80591, 05 August 1991, 200 SCRA 149.

21 Supra note 2, pp. 36-39.

22 Moreover, respondents are not unjustified in keeping their mother Eufemia in their company. The Constitution provides that the family has the duty to take care of its elderly members. (Section 4, Article XV) Moreover, it is also a declared State policy to encourage families to reaffirm the valued Filipino tradition of caring for senior citizens. [See Section 1(b), RA 7432 (Senior Citizens Act), as amended.]




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-2008 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 04-8-198-MeTC - RE: REPORT OF JUDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, QUEZON CITY, ABOUT THE LOSS OF CERTAIN VALUABLES AND ITEMS WITHIN THE COURT PREMISES

  • A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC - Re: CONVICTION OF JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 121, CALOOCAN CITY IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. Q-97-69655 to 56 FOR CHILD ABUSE

  • A.M. No. 07-8-207-MTC - RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ASUNCION, DAVAO DEL NORTE

  • A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC - THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

  • ADM. MATTER NO. CA-07-22-P - ALFREDO S. RAMOS v. VIRGINIA D. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-04-1533 - VICKY C. MABANTO v. Judge MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-05-1572 Formerly A.M. No. 04-8-208-MTCC - IN RE: PARTIAL REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTCC, BRANCH 1, CEBU CITY

  • A.M. No. P-07-2336 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2524-P - FIDELA Y. VARGAS v. NOEL G. PRIMO

  • A.M. No. P-06-2173 Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2300-P - SALLY BUNAGAN v. SHERIFF JOEL FERRAREN

  • A.M. No. P-06-2280 Formerly AM No. OCA IPI No. 06-2457-P - ELLEN BELARMINO LOPENA v. MARY JANE L. SALOMA, ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2336 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2524-P - FIDELA Y. VARGAS v. NOEL G. PRIMO

  • A.M. No. P-08-2418 Formerly AM O.C.A. IPI No. 05-2152-P - FERDINAND S. BASCOS v. ATTY. RAYMUNDO A. RAMIREZ, ETC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1937 and A.M. NO. P-06-2267 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ISMAEL G. BAGUNDANG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1892 Formerly A.M. No. 04-9-494-RTC - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ERNESTO A. REYES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1892 Formerly A.M. No. 04-9-494-RTC - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ERNESTO A. REYES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1937 and A.M. NO. P-06-2267 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ISMAEL G. BAGUNDANG

  • A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2010 : January 30, 2008 - MARISSA R. MONDALA, LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 136, MAKATI CITY, COMPLAINANT, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE REBECCA R. MARIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 136, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-08-2100 - MAYOR SHIRLEY M. PANGILINAN v. JUDGE INOCENCIO M. JAURIGUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124208 and G.R. NO. 124275 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138464 - HON. GOVERNOR DEMOCRITO O. PLAZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140484 - ISABELITA SEVILLA CASTRO v. LAMBERTO RAMOS CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142627 and G.R. NO. 172750 - MARIANO, ET AL. ALL SURNAMED NAJARRO v. JARSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143697 - DIONISIA DORADO VDA DE DELFIN, ETC. v. SALVADOR D. DELLOTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143581 - KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. v. HON. ALBERTO A. LERMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146972 - B & I REALTY CO., INC. v. TEODORO CASPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 146184-85, G.R. NO. 161117 and G.R. NO. 167827 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. OLONGAPO MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147082 - HEIRS OF MAURA SO, ETC. v. LUCILA JAMOC ABLIOSCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 147578-85 - ROLANDO L. BALDERAMA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148132, G.R. NO. 151079 and G.R. NO. 151372 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. REGINA M. ASTORGA

  • G.R. No. 149313 - JULITA ROMBAUA PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. JULITA S. OAMIL

  • G.R. No. 149354 - ROLAND V. VELOSO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 150107 and G.R. NO. 150108 - TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. INC., ET AL. v. JORGE VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 150806 - EUFEMIA ALMEDA, ET AL. v. BATHALA MARKETING INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 150861 - AL ARELLANO, ET AL. v. POWERTECH CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152065 - BELEN REAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • G.R. No. 152343 - MA. FE BACOS v. DOMINGO ARCEGA

  • G.R. No. 154080 - NELSIE B. CAƑETE, ET AL. v. GENUINO ICE COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. 154466 - CLIMACO AMORA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 155550 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. STEVEN P. CHIONG

  • G.R. No. 156051 - ALLAN F. PUEN v. STA. ANA AGRO-AQUA CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 156225 - LETRAN CALAMBA FACULTY & EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN CALAMBA INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157264 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 157966 - EDDIE PACQULNG, ET AL. v. COCA-COLA PHILIPPINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 158177 - SPS. BENITO LO BUN TIONG, ET AL. v. VICENTE BALBOA

  • G.R. No. 158401 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. WILLIAM GOTHONG & ABOITIZ (WG&A), INC.

  • G.R. No. 159255 - RODOLFO VASQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 159410 - NIXON T. KUA v. ROBERT DEAN S. BARBERS

  • G.R. No. 159625 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. VALENTINA GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 160273 - CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. RICARDO F. ELIZAGAQUE

  • G.R. No. 160426 - CAPITOLINA VIVERO NAPERE v. AMANDO BARBARONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160876 - AZUCENA MAGALLANES, ET AL. v. SUN YAT SEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162059 - HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165416, G.R. NO. 165584 and G.R. NO. 165731 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. FLORITA A. MASING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167648 - TELEVISION & PRODUCTION EXPONENTS, INC., ET AL. v. ROBERTO C. SERVANA

  • G.R. No. 167179 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELMER CEREDON y PAGARAN

  • G.R. No. 167954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PERLITO MONDIGO y ABEMALEZ

  • G.R. No. 168309 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. MARIAN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168350 - PERCIVAL A. CENDANA v. CIRILO A. AVILA

  • G.R. No. 168560 - KLAVENESS MARITIME AGENCY INC., ET AL. v. BENEFICIARIES OF THE LATE SECOND OFFICER ANTHONY S. ALLAS, ETC.

  • G.R. No. 169482 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HABEAS-CORPUS OF EUFEMIA RODIGUEZ ETC. v. LUISA R. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170136 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERT BRODETT y PAJARO

  • G.R. No. 170281 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GLASGOW CREDIT AND COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170409 - GREGORIA MARTINEZ v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171052 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS, INC. (MAXICARE) v. CARMELA ESTRADA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. 171956 - STATE LAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 172069 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO S. MARTIN

  • G.R. No. 172771 - SPS. ESTER SANTIAGO & DOMINGO CRISTOBAL, ET AL. v. AIDA G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 173582 - YOLANDA SIGNEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 173562 - CENTRAL CEMENT CORPORATION v. MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175833 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDWIN MALICSI

  • G.R. No. 175057 - MA. ROSARIO SANTOS-CONCIO, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176734 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTO LANTANO

  • G.R. No. 177565 Formerly G.R. NOS. 162634-83 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELMER GLIVANO y SILVALLANA

  • G.R. No. 177703 - VILMA G. ARRIOLA, ET AL. v. JOHN NABOR C. ARRIOLA

  • G.R. No. 178059 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTOPHER TABUELOG y CLAOR

  • G.R. No. 178061 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA

  • G.R. No. 178767 - NORMA PATALINGHUG, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180299 - LYNDON D. BOISER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • P.E.T. Case No. 003 - LOREN B. LEGARDA v. NOLI L. DE CASTRO