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,
vs.
LUISA R. VILLANUEVA and TERESITA R. PABELLO, respondents.
Facts: This is a petition for review1 of the resolutions February 2, 2005 and September 2,
2005 of the C.A.where the petition for habeas corpus was denied.
The nephew of Eufemia E. Rodriguez was a 94-year old widow, allegedly suffering from
a poor state of mental health and deteriorating cognitive abilities filed for habeas corpus
after demanding the return of Eufemia from her adopted daughters. The C.A. 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, the C.A. 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 and that there is no need to consider legal custody or custodial rights.
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.
However, respondents state that they are the legally adopted daughters of Eufemia and
her deceased spouse, Maximo Rodriguez. 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 EDGARDO E. VELUZ was appointed as administrator
of the properties of Eufemia and her deceased spouse. By this appointment, 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.Eufemia and the respondents demanded an inventory and return of the
properties entrusted to petitioner. His failure to heed gave rise to a complaint of estafa.
Consequently, and by reason of their mothers deteriorating health, respondents decided
to take custody of Eufemia on January 11, 2005. She willingly went with them. Petitioner
failed to prove either his right to the custody of Eufemia or the illegality of respondents
action.
Issue: Whether or not habeas corpus should be granted.
Ruling: Petition Denied. 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. It is issued
when one is either deprived of liberty or is wrongfully being prevented from exercising
legal custody over another person. Thus, it contemplates two instances: (1) deprivation of
a persons liberty either through illegal confinement or through detention and (2)
withholding of the custody of any person from someone entitled to such custody.
According to the S.C., 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
In this case, the C.A. made an inquiry into whether Eufemia was being restrained of her
liberty. It found that she was not.
Petition was DENIED.

GR No. 125901, March 8, 2001

Tijing vs. CA, 354 SCRA 17
Facts: Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus in order to recover their son from
respondent and presented witnesses to substantiate their petition. Respondent claimed on
the other hand that she is the natural mother of the child.
The trial court held in favor of the petitioners and granted the petition for habeas corpus.
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision rendered by the trial court. The
appellate court expressed its doubts on the propriety of the habeas corpus.
Issue: WON habeas corpus is the proper remedy to regain custody of a minor.
Held: Yes. 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 any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. The writ of habeas corpus is
the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a minor child even if
the latter be in the custody of a third person of his own free will.
No. L-63345, January 30, 1986
Moncupa vs. Enrile
Facts: Petitioners were arrested and detained on the allegation that they were members of
a subversive organization. Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss after the petitioner was temporarily released from
detention on the ground that the petition for habeas corpus may be deemed moot and
academic since the petitioner is free and no longer under the respondents custody.
Petitioner argues that his temporary release did not render the instant petition moot and
academic because of the restrictions imposed by the respondents which constitute an
involuntary and illegal restraint on his freedom.
Issue: WON a petition for a writ of habeas corpus becomes moot and academic in view of
the detained persons release with restrictions.
Held: No. Restraints attached to temporary release of a detained person warrant the
Supreme Courts inquiry into the nature of the involuntary restraint and relieving him of
such restraints as may be illegal. Reservation of the military in the form of restrictions
attached to the detainees temporary release constitutes restraints on the liberty of the
detainee. It is not physical restraint alone which is inquired into by the writ of habeas
corpus. Temporary release of detainee from detention with involuntary restraints does not
render the petition for writ of habeas corpus moot and academic. It is available where a
person continue to be unlawfully denied of one or more of his constitutional freedoms,
where there is denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely involuntary but
are necessary, and where a deprivation of freedom originally valid has later become
arbitrary.