Death terminates civil rights and personality. As such, the corpse itself has no personality and no legal rights. The estate replaces the person upon the death during the pendency of a lawsuit under the Revised Rules of Court.
Though the civil personality of a person is extinguished by death, still, certain rights and obligations are transmitted to their heirs by law, by contract or by will, giving residual rights to a deceased person.
In law, the last wish of the deceased prevails over the wishes of the surviving family and this is the reason why the law allows a person to make his last will and testament. Prior to death, a person can determine how his funeral shall be conducted and draft a will to whom his properties will be given. The memories of those who passed away are still protected under the Revised Penal Code such that libel can be filed if one blackens the memory of a deceased person.
When one dies, the loved ones are in unison in honoring him/her. They usually show unity on how to preserve not only the properties but also the memories she/he left behind. Rarely that a dead hounds the living as to relationships he/she left behind. Some wonder: if a man got into several relationships, which wife will be his in heaven? [Matthew 22:23-30]. In the Philippine setup, one case was brought to the Supreme Court when a lawyer died leaving two lovers – who is entitled to his body or corpse?
A lawyer married Rosario in 1955. They begot five children and even adopted one daughter. Their marriage turned sour. Eventually, they separated-in-fact in 1972. The lawyer met and courted his client, Fe Valino. They fell in love and decided to live together as husband and wife. The lawyer continued to give financial support to his first family [Rosario and their children] until his death in 1992. Fe took it upon herself to shoulder the funeral and burial preparation and expenses since none of the family members was around [since Rosario was in the United States spending Christmas with her children].
When Rosario learned about the death of her husband, she asked Fe to delay the interment, but was declined. Rosario sued Fe for damages claiming that they were deprived of viewing the remains of her husband before the burial.
In her Answer, Fe countered that Rosario and the deceased have been separated for more than 20 years. Despite knowing that the lawyer was in a coma and dying, Rosario still left for the United States. It was the lawyer’s last wish that his remains be interred in the Valino family mausoleum at the Manila Memorial Park.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court in dismissing the case concluded that Rosario did not show love and care for him. Rosario appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. It ordered Fe to have the remains of the lawyer exhumed because the legal wife, Rosario, was entitled to the custody of the remains of her deceased husband notwithstanding their 30-year separation in fact. Fe appealed to the Supreme Court raising the sole issue as to who is entitled to the dead body – the wife who has been separated or the other woman who took care and live with him.
The Supreme Court sitting en banc decided the case of Valino v. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894, 22 April 2014 in this wise: under Article 305 of the Civil Code, the duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the order established by law for support. Article 199 of the Family Code states that whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein provided: [1] the spouse; [2] the descendants in the nearest degree; [3] the ascendants in the nearest degree; and [4] the brothers and sisters [formerly Article 294, Civil Code]. Further, Article 308 of the Civil Code provides: No human remains shall be retained, interred, disposed of or exhumed without the consent of the persons mentioned in Articles 294 and 305. In this connection, Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code provides: Persons charged with the duty of burial. – The immediate duty of burying the body of a deceased person, regardless of the ultimate liability for the expense thereof, shall devolve upon the persons herein below specified: [a] If the deceased was a married man or woman, the duty of the burial shall devolve upon the surviving spouse if he or she possesses sufficient means to pay the necessary expenses; xxx. Thus, it is undeniable that the law simply confines the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to the members of the family to the exclusion of one’s common law partner.
Citing the case of Eugenio, Sr. v. Velez: a petition for habeas corpus was filed by the brothers and sisters of the late Vitaliana Vargas against her lover, Tomas Eugenio, Sr., alleging that he forcibly took her and confined her in his residence. It appearing that she already died of heart failure due to pregnancy, Tomas Eugenio, Sr. sought the dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction and claimed the right to bury the deceased, as the common-law husband. It was ruled that the trial court continued to have jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the death of Vitaliana Vargas. As to the claim of Tomas Eugenio, Sr. that he should be considered a “spouse” having the right and duty to make funeral arrangements for his common-law wife, the Court ruled: xxx Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for many years as husband and wife may be considered legally married in common law jurisdictions but not in the Philippines.
Article 305 of the Civil Code, in relation to what is now Article 199 of the Family Code, specifies the persons who have the right and duty to make funeral arrangements for the deceased. it is undeniable that the law confines the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to the members of the family to the exclusion of one’s common law partner. While it is true that our laws do not just brush aside 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. As applied to this case, it is clear that the law gives the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she being the surviving legal wife.
The fact that she was living separately from her husband and was in the United States when he died has no controlling significance. To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived and renounced her right and duty to make arrangements for the funeral of her deceased husband is baseless. The right and duty to make funeral arrangements, like any other right, will not be considered as having been waived, except upon clear and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent to that end. It cannot be surmised that just because Rosario was unavailable to bury her husband when she died, she had already renounced her right to do so. Should there be doubt as to the true intent of the deceased, the law favors the legitimate family.
***
(Comments and suggestions may be emailed to peoplestonightonline@gmail.com)
