Eugenio v Velez

Padilla | (May 17, 1990)

Marriage & Personal Relations between Spouses – Common Law Marriages/’Live-In’ Relationships

Doctrine: Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. A man and a woman not legally
married who cohabit for many years as husband and wife in the community where they live may be
considered legally mauled in common law jurisdictions but not in the Philippines.

Case Summary: The petitioner and the respondents both claim legal custody to the dead body of
Vitaliana, the petitioner being the deceased’s common law spouse and the respondents being the
deceased’s brothers and sisters. The Court granted the legal custody to the siblings based on the grounds
that the petitioner is not the legitimate spouse of Vitaliana, nor did he have the capacity to wed Vitaliana
as he still had a subsisting marriage with another woman.

FACTS:

1) On September 27, 1988, the Vargases, private respondents, filed a petition for habeas corpus
before the RTC of Misamis Oriental alleging that their sister, Vitaliana Vargas, was forcibly taken
from her residence sometime in 1987.
● It was alleged that Vitaliana was confined by the petitioner, Tomas Eugenio, Sr. in his
palacial residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental.
● Despite her desire to escape, Vitaliana, who was 25 years old at this time, was allegedly
deprived of her liberty without any legal authority.
2) During the petition was filed, Vitaliana has passed away; she died on August 28, 1988. The
siblings claim to only have knowledge of this fact on September 28, 1988, the date when the
writ of habeas corpus was also issued by the respondent court.
3) The writ of habeas corpus issued by the RTC was left unsatisfied because the petitioner has
refused to surrender the body of Vitaliana, reasoning that a corpse cannot be the subject of
habeas corpus proceedings, thereby, he filed an urgent motion to dismiss the petition, asserting
that habeas corpus is not applicable to a dead person but extends only to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention of a live person.
4) According to the petitioner, Vitaliana died of heart failure due to toxemia of pregnancy and as
her common law husband, he has the legal custody of the deceased’s body. In fact, he has
already secured a burial permit from the Undersecretary of the Department of Health.
5) Upon learning the death of Vitaliana, the Vargases amended their petition in order to claim legal
custody of their sister’s body. Invoking Articles 305 and 308 of the Civil Code, the Vargases
contended that, as the next kin in the Philippines, they are the legal custodians of the dead body
of Vitaliana and they have the duty to bury her; this duty was being wrongfully interfered by the
Eugenio.
6) Eugenio claims that 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.
7) Using the order of preference to give support under Article 294 as the basis of the decision, the
respondent court granted the legal custody of Vitaliana’s body to her siblings. The Court
 asserted that Eugenio has failed to establish a clear legal right to the custody of the dead body
of Vitaliana – for one, he was merely a common law spouse of the deceased and more
importantly, he is still legally married to another woman during his cohabitation with Vitaliana.
Issue:

- Does the petitioner, being the common law spouse, have the legal right to the custody of the
dead body of Vitaliana?
Ruling:

- The Court held that the custody of the dead body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to her
surviving brothers and sisters (the Vargases). The Court asserted that the petitioner does not
have the legal right to the custody of the dead body of the deceased because he is not the
legitimate spouse. The Court held that the provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly
providing to the contrary, 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 as he has a subsisting marriage with another woman.
Furthermore, the Court posited that 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 mauled in common law
jurisdictions but not in the Philippines. While the Court recognized the fact that such
relationships are present in our society, and that they produce a community of properties and
interests which is governed by law, authority exists in case law to the effect that such form of
co-ownership requires that the man and woman living together must not in any way be
incapacitated to contract marriage.
Disposition:

- The petitions are dismissed. The Court upheld the decision to grant the legal custody of the
dead body to the Vargases.

Notes:

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;
(2) From the descendants of the nearest degree;
(3) From the ascendants, also of the nearest degree;
(4) From the brothers and sisters.
Among descendants and ascendants the order in which they are called to the intestate succession of the person who has a right to claim
support shall be observed.

Art 305. The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the order established for support,
under Article 294. In case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the
paternal shall have a better right.

Art 306. Every funeral shall be in keeping with the social position of the deceased.