GR 71159; (November, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 71159 November 15, 1989
CITY OF MANILA and EVANGELINE SUVA, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, IRENE STO. DOMINGO and for and in behalf of her minor children, VIVENCIO, JR., IRIS, VERGEL and IMELDA, all surnamed STO. DOMINGO, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a complaint for damages filed by the widow and children of the late Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Sr. against the City of Manila and its cemetery officials. Vivencio died in 1971 and was buried in a leased lot at the Manila North Cemetery. The family presented Official Receipt No. 61307, issued by the City Treasurer, indicating full payment of a P50.00 rental for a lease period from June 6, 1971, to June 6, 2021. No other formal contract was executed. In 1978, cemetery officials, relying on a 1975 Administrative Order prescribing a five-year lease term for new leases, certified the lot for exhumation. The remains of Vivencio were exhumed, stored in a common depository with thousands of other skeletal remains, and the lot was re-leased to another party. The family discovered the desecration on All Souls’ Day and filed suit, refusing an offer of a substitute lot and demanding the recovery of their patriarch’s specific remains.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether the City of Manila was liable for damages arising from the unauthorized exhumation and loss of the deceased’s remains, based on the validity of the 50-year lease contract evidenced by the official receipt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, holding the City of Manila liable for damages. The legal logic centered on contract law and the principle of respondent superior. The Court ruled that the official receipt, regular on its face and issued by a city deputy treasurer, constituted a valid and binding contract of lease for 50 years. The City’s defense, that its 1975 Administrative Order limited leases to five years, was unavailing as the order applied only to new leases executed after its effectivity, not to pre-existing contracts like the Sto. Domingos’. The premature exhumation in 1978, while the 50-year lease was still in full force, constituted a clear breach of contract.
Furthermore, the tortious acts of the city’s agents in exhuming the remains without verifying the lease duration and commingling them with other remains, causing immense emotional distress and making specific recovery nearly impossible, rendered the City liable under the doctrine of respondent superior. The awarded damages—for breach of contract, moral damages for the wounded feelings and mental anguish, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees—were upheld as justified by the gross negligence and the profound spiritual and emotional suffering inflicted upon the bereaved family. The Court emphasized the sanctity of burial rights and the state’s corresponding duty to respect contractual obligations concerning them.