G.R. No. 85140 & G.R. No. 86470. May 17, 1990.
Tomas Eugenio, Sr., petitioner, vs. Hon. Alejandro M. Velez, et al., and Crisanta Vargas-Sanchez, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the siblings of Vitaliana Vargas, filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that Vitaliana was forcibly confined by petitioner Tomas Eugenio in his residence. Unaware that Vitaliana had already died a month prior, they sought her production before the court. The respondent judge issued the writ, but petitioner refused to surrender the body, arguing a corpse cannot be the subject of habeas corpus and that he, as her alleged common-law husband, had custody and a burial permit. Upon learning of the death, private respondents amended their petition, asserting their right as next of kin under the Civil Code to custody and burial of their sister’s remains, and sought the court’s intervention against petitioner’s interference.
The Regional Trial Court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss. It held that while the original habeas corpus petition became moot upon Vitaliana’s death, the court retained jurisdiction over the ancillary issue of determining the rightful custodian of her remains, treating the amended petition as an ordinary civil action. The court subsequently ordered the body’s transfer to a funeral parlor for autopsy and, after hearing, ruled in favor of the siblings, ordering the body’s release to them for burial. Petitioner elevated the case via certiorari and appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute over the custody and burial of Vitaliana Vargas’s remains after her death rendered the original habeas corpus petition moot.

RULING

Yes, the Regional Trial Court validly exercised jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the writ of habeas corpus secures the right to personal liberty and becomes functus officio upon the death of the detained person. Consequently, the original petition was rendered moot. However, the court correctly recognized that the amended petition raised a distinct justiciable issue: the determination of who has the legal right to custody and burial of the deceased’s body. This issue, involving familial relations and incapable of pecuniary estimation, falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The court properly treated the continuing proceedings as an ordinary civil action for that purpose. On the merits, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision awarding custody to the siblings. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of a common-law marriage with Vitaliana. Under Articles 305 and 308 of the Civil Code, the duty and right to arrange for the funeral of a relative devolve upon the next of kin in the order established for support. As full-blood siblings, private respondents have a superior legal right over petitioner, who is unrelated by blood or a proven marital union.