Scribd
Upload
334 views1 page

52 Veluz V Villanueva Digest

1) Eufemia Rodriguez, a 94-year old widow suffering from poor mental health, lived with her nephew Edgardo Veluz since 2000. In 2005, Eufemia's legally adopted children took Eufemia from Veluz's house. 2) Veluz filed a habeas corpus petition claiming the adopted children were unlawfully restraining Eufemia's liberty. The Court of Appeals denied the petition as Veluz failed to prove unlawful restraint or establish his right to custody as he was not her legal guardian. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that in habeas corpus petitions, legal custody is relevant. The writ applies if someone is deprived of liberty or the rightful custody of a person. As Vel

Uploaded by

rgomez_940509
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
334 views1 page

52 Veluz V Villanueva Digest

1) Eufemia Rodriguez, a 94-year old widow suffering from poor mental health, lived with her nephew Edgardo Veluz since 2000. In 2005, Eufemia's legally adopted children took Eufemia from Veluz's house. 2) Veluz filed a habeas corpus petition claiming the adopted children were unlawfully restraining Eufemia's liberty. The Court of Appeals denied the petition as Veluz failed to prove unlawful restraint or establish his right to custody as he was not her legal guardian. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that in habeas corpus petitions, legal custody is relevant. The writ applies if someone is deprived of liberty or the rightful custody of a person. As Vel

Uploaded by

rgomez_940509
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

1

Rule 102

Veluz v Villanueva
G.R. No. 169482 | January 29, 2008

Facts:

Eufemia E. Rodriguez, a 94-year old widow, allegedly suffering from a poor


state of mental health and deteriorating cognitive abilities, was living with
petitioner, Edgardo Veluz, her nephew, since 2000.

On January 11, 2005, respondents, legally adopted children of Eufemia, took


their mother from Veluz’ house. Veluz 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 corpus in the Court of
Appeals. However, CA ruled that Veluz failed (1) to present any convincing
proof that respondents were unlawfully restraining their mother of her liberty,
and (2) to establish his legal right to the custody of Eufemia as he was not
her legal guardian.

Hence, this case was filed. Petitioner claimed that, in determining if 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.

Issue:

In petition for writ of habeas corpus, is issue of legal custody insignificant?

Ruling:

No. 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. 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 deciding a petition for habeas corpus, a court must first inquire into whether
a person is being restrained of his liberty. Where such restraint exists, only
then will inquiry into the cause of detention shall proceed. Only if the alleged
cause is thereafter found to be unlawful will the writ be granted. Indeed,
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.

Herein, there is no proof that Eufemia is being detained and restrained of her
liberty by respondents. On the contrary, respondents, being Eufemia’s
adopted children, are taking care of her.

You might also like