In 2005, Luisa Villanueva fetched her adopted mother, Eufemia Rodriguez, a 94 year old woman, from her residence and brought her to her residence. Two days later, Edgardo Veluz, the nephew of Eufemia with who, Eufemia used to live, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the Court of Appeals. Veluz alleged that Eufemia was being restrained by Eufemia. His petition was denied by the Court of Appeals for insufficiency as Veluz failed to prove any right over the person of Eufemia.
Veluz now appeals the decision of the CA. He argues that the CA decision is wrong because it should not have discussed the issue on custody. He argues 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not Veluz is correct.
HELD: 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. 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 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 this case however, the SC ruled that this is more of a case on whether or not Eufemia is being restrained by Luisa. The evidence presented by Veluz is insufficient. It appears that Eufemia voluntarily left with Luisa. In habeas corpus cases involving the issue of liberty, a court or judge must first inquire into whether the subject person is being restrained of his liberty. If he is not, the writ will be refused. Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed only where such restraint exists. If the alleged cause is thereafter found to be unlawful, then the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged. Needless to state, if otherwise, again the writ will be refused.
