•  TALLY OF THE MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1985-2005 (SAN

BEDA)

Habeas corpus
Extrajudicial Settlement
Probate Court, jurisdiction
Actions against executors
Adoption
Appointment of administrator
Unlawful Detainer
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Essentially a writ of inquiry, granted to test the right under which a person
is detained, and to relieve a person if such restraint is illegal

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. [Sec. 1, Rule
102]

Can only be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion and when public

interest requires it (Art. III Sec. 15, CONSTITUTION)
 NATURE
Not a suit between private parties, but an inquisition by the
government, at the suggestion and instance of an individual, but still in
the name and capacity of the sovereign. [Alimpoos v. CA, 106 SCRA
159 (1981)]

Proceedings in habeas corpus are separate and distinct from the

main case from which the proceedings spring.

Hence - the question whether one shall be imprisoned is always distinct

from the question of whether the individual shall be convicted or
acquitted of the charge on which he is tried, and therefore these
questions are separate, and may be decided in different courts
VITAL PURPOSES: IN GENERAL

(1) To obtain relief from illegal confinement

(2) To liberate those who may be imprisoned

without sufficient cause

(3) To deliver them from unlawful custody

 OTHER PURPOSES
•  may be used with writ of certiorari for purposes of review

•  Remedy for reviewing proceedings for deportation of aliens

•  Where the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence

•  excessive sentence or penalty

•  persons sentenced to life for violation of dangerous drugs law but

penalty reduced by new law

•  enable parents to regain custody of minor children

 MCQ 2012 BAR EXAM
C, a convict, was able to get favorable results of a post-conviction DNA
testing showing that C could not have committed the crime. To gain
freedom, C may:
a. file a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the court of origin.

b. apply for full pardon.

c. file a Motion to annul judgment of conviction on the ground of fraud.

d. file a Motion for new trial under Rule 121.

 SUGGESTED ANSWER
(a), The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA
testing are favourable to the convict. In case the court, after due hearing, finds
the petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of
conviction and order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is
justified for a lawful cause. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, which may
conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and
issue the appropriate orders. (Sec.10, Rule on DNA Evidence).
WHEN WRIT MAY NOT BE THE PROPER REMEDY
1. correction of errors of fact or law
(except when the error affects jurisdiction - this makes the
judgment void)

2. where the petitioner has the remedy of appeal or certiorari

3. assert or vindicate denial of right to bail

4. to recover damages or any other money award

5. Question improper arrest or lack of preliminary investigation

Section 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. — If it appears that
the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer
under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of
a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed;
or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be
discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or
order. Not shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a
person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person
suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
 REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT

General Minor
1. Person in whose behalf the 1.  Petitioner has the right to the
application is made is imprisoned custody over the minor
OR restrained of his liberty 2.  Rightful custody of the minor is
2. Name of the person detaining being withheld from the
another* petitioner by the respondent
3. Place where he is imprisoned or 3.  Best interest of the minor
restrained of his liberty* concerned to be in the custody
4. Cause of his detention** of petitioner
 1998 BAR EXAM
A was arrested on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the
RTC in connection with an Information for Homicide. W, the live-in
partner of A filed a petition for habeas corpus against A's jailer and
police investigators with the Court of Appeals.

1. Does W have the personality to file the petition for habeas

corpus?

2. Is the petition tenable? [3%]

 SUGGESTED ANSWER

1. Does W have the personality to file the petition for habeas corpus?

Yes. W, the live-in partner of A, has the personality to file the

petition for habeas corpus because it may be filed by "some person in
his behalf."(Sec. 3. Rule 102. Rules of Court.)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

2. Is the petition (for habeas corpus) tenable? [3%]

No. The petition is not tenable because the warrant of arrest was
issued by a court which had Jurisdiction to issue it (Sec. 4, Rule 102
Rules of Court)
JURISDICTION
In general In the case of minors
Underlying Illegality of
Rationale Right of custody
the restraint

Who may issue The SC,CA, and Family

writ RTC have courts**
concurrent
jurisdiction to
issue WHC*
[Sec.2, Rule 102]
 TRUE OR FALSE (2009 BAR EXAM)

In the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the

Sandiganbayan may grant petitions for the issuance of
a writ of habeas corpus.
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

FALSE. The Sandiganbayan may grant petitions for

Habeas corpus only in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction (R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A 8249),
not in the exercise of “original” jurisdiction.
 MCQ 2012 BAR EXAM
A judge of an MTC can hear and decide petitions for habeas corpus or
applications for bail where:

a. the Supreme Court authorizes the MTC.

b. the judge is the Executive Judge of the MTC.

c. the judge of the RTC where the case is raffled has retired, was
dismissed or had died.

d. in the absence of all the RTC Judges in the province or city.

 SUGGESTED ANSWER

(d) In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a

province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial
Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for
a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit. (Section
35, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129).

 SCOPE OF THE WRIT
Section 2. Who may grant the writ. — The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by
the Supreme Court, or any member thereof, on any day and at any time, or by
the Court of Appeals or any member thereof in the instances authorized by law,
and if so granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and may be
made returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before a Court of
First Instance [RTC], or any judge thereof for the hearing and decision on the
merits. It may also be granted by a Court of First Instance [RTC], or a judge
thereof, on any day and at any time, and returnable before himself, enforceable
only within his judicial district.
 1993 BAR EXAM
Roxanne, a widow, filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals
against Major Amor who is allegedly detaining her 18-year old son Bong without
authority of the law.

After Major Amor had a filed a return alleging the cause of detention of Bong, the
Court of Appeals promulgated a resolution remanding the case to the RTC for a
full-blown trial due to the conflicting facts presented by the parties in their
pleadings. In directing the remand, the court of Appeals relied on Sec.9(1), in
relation to Sec. 21 of BP 129 conferring upon said Court the authority to try and
decide habeas corpus cases concurrently with the RTCs. Did the Court of Appeals
act correctly in remanding the petition to the RTC? Why?
 SUGGESTED ANSWER
Did the Court of Appeals act correctly in remanding the petition to the RTC?
Why?

No, because while the CA has original jurisdiction over habeas corpus
concurrent with the RTCs, it has no authority for remanding to the latter
original actions filed with the former. On the contrary, the CA is specifically
given the power to receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary
to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original jurisdiction.
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER

Did the Court of Appeals act correctly in remanding the petition to the
RTC? Why?

Yes, because there is no prohibition in the law against a superior

court referring a case to a lower court having concurrent jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has referred to the CA or the RTC cases falling
within their concurrent jurisdiction.
 2003 BAR EXAM

Widow A and her two children, both girls, aged 8 and 12 years old,
reside in Angeles City, Pampanga. A leaves her two daughters in their
house at night because she works in a brothel as a prostitute.
Realizing the danger to the morals of these two girls, B, the father of
the deceased husband of A, files a petition for habeas corpus against
A for the custody of the girls in the Family Court in Angeles City.
In said petition, B alleges that he is entitled to the custody of the two girls
because their mother is living a disgraceful life. The court issues the writ of
habeas corpus. When A learns of the petition and the writ, she brings her
two children to Cebu City. At the expense of B the sheriff of the said
Family Court goes to Cebu City and serves the writ on A. A files her
comment on the petition raising the following defenses:

a) The enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus in Cebu City is illegal; and
b) B has no personality to institute the petition. 6%

Resolve the petition in the light of the above defenses of A. (6%)

 SUGGESTED ANSWER
DEFENSE #1: The enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus in Cebu City is illegal;

(a) The writ of habeas corpus issued by the Family Court in Angeles City may not
be legally enforced in Cebu City, because the writ is enforceable only within the
judicial region to which the Family Court belongs, unlike the writ granted by the
Supreme Court or Court of Appeals which is enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines. (Sec. 20 of Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Relation to Custody of Minors. (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC; see also Sec. 4 of Rule 102,
Rules of Court.)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

DEFENSE #2: B has no personality to institute the petition.

B, the father of the deceased husband of A, has the personality to

institute the petition for habeas corpus of the two minor girls,
because the grandparent has the right of custody as against the
mother A who is a prostitute. (Sectioins 2 and 13, Id.)
 2005 BAR EXAM
While Marietta was in her place of work in Makati City, her
estranged husband Carlo barged into her house in Paranaque City,
abducted their six-year old son, Percival, and brought the child to his
hometown in Baguio City. Despite Marietta's pleas, Carlo refused to
return their child. Marietta, through counsel, filed a petition for
habeas corpus against Carlo in the Court of Appeals in Manila to
compel him to produce their son, before the court and for her to
regain custody. She alleged in the petition that despite her efforts, she
could no longer locate her son.
In his comment, Carlo alleged that the petition was erroneously filed
in the Court of Appeals as the same should have been filed in the
Family Court in Baguio City which, under Republic Act No. 8369, has
exclusive jurisdiction, over the petition. Marietta replied that under
Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the petition may be filed
in the Court of Appeals and if granted, the writ of habeas corpus shall
be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. Whose contention is
correct? Explain. (5%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER

Marietta's contention is correct. The Court of Appeals has

concurrent jurisdiction with the family courts and the Supreme Court
in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at
issue, notwithstanding the provision in the Family Courts AH. (R.A.
No. 8369) that family courts have exclusive jurisdiction in such cases.
(Thornton v. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, August, 2004)
General Rule:
Release of detained person, whether
permanent or temporary, makes the
petition for habeas corpus moot.

Exceptions -
(1)  Doctrine of Constructive Restraint
(2)  Violation of freedom from threat by the
apparent threat to life, liberty and security
of their person
 Doctrine of Constructive Restraint

Unless there are restraints attached to his release which

precludes freedom of action in which case the Court can still
inquire into the nature of his involuntary restraint.

The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is

to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint. Any restraint
which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient.
Violation of freedom from threat by the apparent threat to life,
liberty and security of their person from the following facts:

(a)  Threat of killing their families if they tried to escape

(b)  Failure of the military to protect them from abduction

(c)  Failure of the military to conduct effective

investigation

[Secretary of Justice v. Manalo]

 Application for the writ by petition 1
(Sec 3, Rule 102)

Grant or disallowance by court or judge

2
[Secs. 4 & 5, Rule 102]

Clerk of Court issues the writ under the seal

of court (in case of emergency, by the judge 3
himself) [Sec. 5. Rule 105]

Service 4

Execution and return 5

 REQUISITES OF APPLICATION :

1 APPLICATION (1)  That the person in whose behalf the

application is made is imprisoned or
restrained of his liberty
Who may apply? (2)  The officer or name of the person
(1) The party for whose relief it is by whom he is so imprisoned or
intended, or restrained or if both are unknown or
(2) By some person on his behalf uncertain, such officer or person may be
[Sec. 3, Rule 102] described by an assumed appellation, and the
person who is served with the writ shall be
deemed the person intended
Some person – any person who has a (3)  The place where he is so imprisoned or
legally justified interest in the freedom restrained, if known
of the person whose liberty is restrained or (4)  A copy of the commitment or
who shows some authorization to make cause of detention of such person, if it can
the application [Velasco v. CA (1995)] be procured without any legal authority,
such fact shall appear.
4 SERVICE
a.  By whom: sheriff or other proper officer
b.  How: leaving the original with the person to
whom it is directed and preserving a
copy on which to make return
c.  To whom: officer in custody or any officer (when in
custody of person other than an officer)
[Sec. 7, Rule 105]
 5 RETURN
Made by the person or officer in whose custody the prisoner is found:
(1)  Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under restraint
(2)  If he has the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, the authority and the
true and whole cause thereof, set forth at large, with a copy of the writ, order execution, or
other process, if any, upon which the party is held
(3) If the party is in his custody or power or is restrained by him, and is not produced,
particularly the nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity of such party by reason of
which he cannot, without danger, be bought before the court or judge
(4) If he has had the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, and has transferred
such custody or restraint to another, particularly to whom, at what time, for what cause, and
by what authority such transfer was made. [Sec. 10, Rule 102]
When is a return considered evidence and when is it considered only a
plea?

When the prisoner is in If he is restrained of his liberty

custody under a warrant of by any alleged private
authority, the return shall be
commitment in
considered only as a plea of
pursuance of law, the
the facts therein set forth, and
return shall be considered the party claiming the custody
prima facie evidence of the must prove such facts.
cause of restraint. [Sec. 13, Rule 102]
 Case: Lee Yick Hon v Collector of
Customs
FACTS:
Collector of Customs was required to appear and show cause
in writing why the writ of habeas corpus should not issue in
favor of Lee Yick Hon. However, while this was pending, the
Collector allowed the petitioner to be deported.

ISSUE:
Whether the Collector should be punished for contempt?
 RULING

No, the Collector could NOT be punished for contempt

because what was issued was a PRELIMINARY CITATION
and not the PEREMPTORY WRIT of habeas corpus.
DISTINGUISH PEREMPTORY WRIT FROM PRELIMINARY CITATION

PEREMPTORY WRIT –
PRELIMINARY CITATION –
unconditionally commands
requires the respondent to
the respondent to have the
appear and show cause why
body of the detained person
the peremptory writ should
before the court at a time
not be granted
and place therein specified
 2009 BAR EXAM

What is the writ of amparo? How is it

distinguished from the writ of habeas
corpus?
 Writ of Amparo Writ of Habeas Corpus

remedy available to any person whose

right to life, liberty, and security is
violated or threatened with violation by remedy available to any individual who is
an unlawful act or omission of a public deprived of liberty or whose rightful
official or employee, or of a private custody of any person is withheld, by
individual or entity. The writ shall cover unlawful confinement or detention.
e x t r a l e g a l k i l l i n g s a n d e n fo rc e d
disappearances or threats thereof.

appealed to the Supreme Court under

Rule 45 raising questions of fact or law period for appeal for habeas corpus shall
or both. The appeal shall be made within be 48hours from the notice of the
5 working days from the date of notice judgment appealed from
of the adverse judgment
 Writ of Habeas Data Writ of Habeas Corpus

Involves the right to privacy in life,

liberty or security violated or
remedy available to any
threatened by an unlawful act or individual who is deprived
omission of a public official or of liber ty or whose
employee or of a private individual
or entity engaged in the gathering, rightful custody of any
collecting or storing of data or person is withheld, by
information regarding the person,
family, home and correspondence of
unlawful confinement or
aggrieved party detention.
 Person discharged not to be again
imprisoned

A person who is set at liberty upon a writ of habeas corpus shall not
be again imprisoned for the same offense unless by the lawful order
or process of a court having jurisdiction of the cause or offense.
(Sec 17, Rule 102)