GR NO.

L 14639 March 15, 1918

Zacarias Villavicencio, et al., petitioners vs Justo Lukban et al., respondents

Facts:

 Mayor Lukban of Manila ordered the closure of the establishment that promulgated
prostitution. After closure, the prostitutes were kept in houses while plans of relocating
them were made. Arrangemenst were set with the Bureau of Labor, soldiers and
coastguard cutters. During midnight, 170 women were escorted to steamers. They assumed
that they would be subjected to an investigation. They did not have any knowledge that they
will be transported to Davao to work as laborers. Consent from the women was not asked
as they boarded the steamers unknowing of the plans.
 The women were received as laborers by Sales, Castillo and Governor of Davao Ynigo. The
governor was not notified of the truth that these women were deported from Manila.
 Relatives and friends filed an application for Habeas Corpus.
 The court directed the respondents to bring back the women in Manila(1st order).Lukban
was slow to comply. He was able to bring back 8 women only.
 Respondents insisted that Habeas Corpus should not be granted because petitioners were
not proper parties, action should be initiated in the court of first instance of Davao, that they
no longer have custody of the women and lastly they no longer have jurisdiction outside
Manila.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the Court shall allow a government of men or a government of laws, in the
Philippines. (NO)

Held

 The government should and always uphold the law. Actions that cannot be backed up
by our laws are not recognized legal and may pose a ground that may violate the rights
of other people. And if held against their will habeas corpus should be granted to restore
freedom of those illegally detained and transferred to another place. Act no. 519
pertains to eviction of undesirable aliens and section 733 of revised ordinances provide
conviction and punisment for prostitutes. But they do not permit the forced relocation
of the Filipino citizens to change domicile.
 Code of Criminal Procedure sec 78 code of civil procedure sec 527, Request for writ of
habeas corpus can be done by other person in their behalf. The women were not in Manila
and to be understood that they cannot file personally.
 Code of criminal procedure sec79 code of civil procedure sec 526, the writ can be granted
by the supreme court or any court in the country. This is to avoid expenses and
inconvenience. In this case the the filing may need not to be done in Davao.
 Primary requisite of Habeas Corpus is restrain of liberty. Any force to prevent action is
enough to merit request for habeas corpus.
 Magna Charta 9 Hen. 111 1225,cap 29:1 eng stat at large 7 states, ”No freeman shall be
taken , or imprisoned or be disseized of his freehold or liberties, or free customs or be
 outlawed or exiled or any other wise destroyed ; nor will we pass upon him nor condemn
him, but by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man
, we will not deny or f\defer to any man either justice or right.
 US vs Lee 1882, The law is the only supreme power in our system of government and
every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly
bound to submit to that supremacy and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon
the exercise of the authority it gives. Officials are expected to act in accordance of the law.
 Yick Wo vs Hopkins, “The very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the
means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of
another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails as being the
essence of slavery itself”. It was unlawful for Lukban to deprive the women of their liberty
to stay in Manila.
 Jackson 1867, 15 Mich, 416 “It would be a monstrous anomaly in the law if to an
application by one unlawfully confined, to be restored to his liberty , it could be a sufficient
answer that the confinement was a crime ,and therefore might be continued indefinitely
until the guilty party was tried and punished therefor by the slow process of criminal
procedure”. Lukban can be held liable for detaining the women in their homes and later on
sending them to Davao.
 The queen vs bernardo, where the defendant was asked to present the child before the
judge. Same with US vs Davis, where Davis was ordered to present the negroes. These are
cases where the court ordered to present persons that had been brought to another place
against their will
 The supreme court found other respondents not guilty of contempt of court. While Lukban
is guilty off contempt of court. And shall pay 100 pesos to the court.
 The supreme court found other respondents not guilty of contempt of court. While Lukban
is guilty off contempt of court. And shall pay 100 pesos to the court.