Villavicencio, et al. vs. Lukban, et al., GR No.

L-14639
FACTS:
On the midnight of October 25, 1918, the respondents, Manila City Mayor Justo
Lukban and chief of police Anton Hohmann, acting pursuant to orders, forced 170
women of ill-repute aboard steamers bound for Davao, against their will and without
prior notice. These women were kept confined for working in houses of prostitution
in Gardenia Street.
Upon reaching Davao, they were landed and received as laborers by Davao
provincial governor Francisco Sales, and by Feliciano Ynigo and Rafael Castillo. The
governor and Ynigo, also respondents in this case, were not informed that these
women were prostitutes who had been expelled from Manila.
Relatives and friends of majority of these deported women, through their attorney,
presented an application for habeas corpus to a member of the Supreme Court. The
application included all of the women who were sent away from Manila to Davao.
However, the respondents claimed that the writ should not be granted because the
petitioners were not the proper parties to file the application.
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to bring said women to before the
court on December 2, 1918, but on that day, none of the persons were produced by
the respondents. Instead, the respondents offered certain affidavits showing that
the women did not wish to return to Manila. The Court promulgated a second order
for the said women to be brought on January 13, 1919. The respondents were only
able to present the seven women who returned to Manila through their own efforts,
and eight others who had been brought to Manila by the respondents.
The petitioners asked the court to find Justo Lukban, Anton Hohmann, members of
the police force of Manila Jose Rodriguez and Fernando Ordax, Feliciano Ynigo,
Bureau of Labor attorney Modesto Joaquin and Manila City fiscal Anacleto Diaz in
contempt of court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the respondent, Justo Lukban, had the authority as Mayor of
Manila City to deport these persons to another distant locality.
2. Whether or not the writ of habeas corpus was the proper remedy, given these
sub-issues presented by the respondents:
a. The petitioners were the proper party to file the application;
b. The Supreme Court should not assume jurisdiction; and
c. The persons in question are not restrained of their liberty.
3. Whether or not the respondents were guilty of contempt of court.
HELD:
1. No, the respondent did not have the authority to deport these persons.

2. Yes, the writ of habeas corpus was the proper remedy.

a. The petitioners had the capacity
b. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction.
c. The persons did not enjoy their freedom.
3. Only Justo Lukban is guilty of contempt of court.