[SPECPRO] 2015-2016

[G.R. No. 139789. May 12, 2000]

ERLINDA K.
ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA I.
BILDNER and SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, JOHN DOE
and JANE DOE, respondents. Mesm
[G.R. No. 139808. May 12, 2000]
POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MA. ERLINDA I.
BILDNER, and SYLVIA ILUSORIO, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERLINDA K.
ILUSORIO, respondents.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
May a wife secure a writ of habeas corpus to
compel her husband to live with her in conjugal
bliss? The answer is no. Marital rights including
coverture and living in conjugal dwelling may not
be enforced by the extra-ordinary writ of habeas
corpus.
A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of
illegal confinement or detention,[1] or by which
the rightful custody of a person is withheld from
the one entitled thereto.[2] Slx
"Habeas corpus is a writ directed to the person
detaining another, commanding him to produce
the body of the prisoner at a designated time and
place, with the day and cause of his capture and
detention, to do, submit to, and receive
whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in that behalf."[3]
It is a high prerogative, common-law writ, of
ancient origin, the great object of which is the
liberation of those who may be imprisoned
without sufficient cause.[4] It is issued when one is
deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented
from exercising legal custody over another
person.[5]
The petition of Erlinda K. Ilusorio[6] is to reverse
the decision[7] of the Court of Appeals and its
resolution[8] dismissing the application for habeas
corpus to have the custody of her husband,
lawyer
Potenciano
Ilusorio
and
enforce
consortium as the wife.
On the other hand, the petition of Potenciano
Ilusorio[9] is to annul that portion of the decision
of the Court of Appeals giving Erlinda K. Ilusorio
visitation rights to her husband and to enjoin

Erlinda and the Court of Appeals from enforcing

the visitation rights.
The undisputed facts are as follows: Scslx
Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio is the wife of lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio.
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age
possessed of extensive property valued at
millions of pesos. For many years, lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio was Chairman of the Board
and President of Baguio Country Club.
On July 11, 1942, Erlinda Kalaw and Potenciano
Ilusorio contracted matrimony and lived together
for a period of thirty (30) years. In 1972, they
separated from bed and board for undisclosed
reasons.
Potenciano
lived
at
Urdaneta
Condominium, Ayala Ave., Makati City when he
was in Manila and at Ilusorio Penthouse, Baguio
Country Club when he was in Baguio City. On the
other hand, Erlinda lived in Antipolo City.
Out of their marriage, the spouses had six (6)
children, namely: Ramon Ilusorio (age 55); Erlinda
Ilusorio Bildner (age 52); Maximo (age 50); Sylvia
(age 49); Marietta (age 48); and Shereen (age
39).
On December 30, 1997, upon Potencianos arrival
from the United States, he stayed with Erlinda for
about five (5) months in Antipolo City. The
children, Sylvia and Erlinda (Lin), alleged that
during this time, their mother gave Potenciano an
overdose of 200 mg instead of 100 mg Zoloft, an
antidepressant drug prescribed by his doctor in
New York, U.S.A. As a consequence, Potencianos
health deteriorated.
On February 25, 1998, Erlinda filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City a petition [10] for
guardianship over the person and property of
Potenciano Ilusorio due to the latters advanced
age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired
judgment.
On May 31, 1998, after attending a corporate
meeting in Baguio City, Potenciano Ilusorio did
not return to Antipolo City and instead lived at
Cleveland Condominium, Makati. Slxsc
On March 11, 1999, Erlinda filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for habeas corpus to have the
custody of lawyer Potenciano Ilusorio. She
alleged that respondents [11] refused petitioners
demands to see and visit her husband and

[SPECPRO] 2015-2016
prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo
City.

restraint of liberty must be actual and effective,

not merely nominal or moral.[18]

After due hearing, on April 5, 1999, the Court of

Appeals rendered decision the dispositive portion
of which reads:

The evidence shows that there was no actual and

effective detention or deprivation of lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorios liberty that would justify the
issuance of the writ. The fact that lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio is about 86 years of age, or
under medication does not necessarily render
him mentally incapacitated. Soundness of mind
does not hinge on age or medical condition but
on the capacity of the individual to discern his
actions.

"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing

disquisitions, judgment is hereby rendered:
"(1) Ordering, for humanitarian consideration and
upon petitioners manifestation, respondents
Erlinda K. Ilusorio Bildner and Sylvia Ilusorio-Yap,
the administrator of Cleveland Condominium or
anywhere in its place, his guards and Potenciano
Ilusorios staff especially Ms. Aurora Montemayor
to allow visitation rights to Potenciano Ilusorios
wife, Erlinda Ilusorio and all her children,
notwithstanding any list limiting visitors thereof,
under penalty of contempt in case of violation of
refusal thereof; xxx
"(2) ORDERING that the writ of habeas corpus
previously issued be recalled and the herein
petition for habeas corpus be DENIED DUE
COURSE, as it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
unlawful restraint or detention of the subject of
the petition.
"SO ORDERED."[12]
Hence,
the
two
petitions,
which
were
consolidated and are herein jointly decided.
As heretofore stated, a writ of habeas corpus
extends to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention,[13] or by which the rightful custody of a
person is withheld from the one entitled thereto.
It is available where a person continues to be
unlawfully denied of one or more of his
constitutional freedoms, where there is denial of
due process, where the restraints are not merely
involuntary but are unnecessary, and where a
deprivation of freedom originally valid has later
become arbitrary.[14] It is devised as a speedy and
effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful
restraint, as the best and only sufficient defense
of personal freedom.[15] Jksm
The essential object and purpose of the writ
of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint, and to relieve a person
therefrom if such restraint is illegal.[16]
To justify the grant of the petition, the restraint of
liberty must be an illegal and involuntary
deprivation of freedom of action.[17] The illegal

After due hearing, the Court of Appeals

concluded that there was no unlawful restraint on
his liberty.
The Court of Appeals also observed that lawyer
Potenciano Ilusorio did not request the
administrator of the Cleveland Condominium not
to allow his wife and other children from seeing
or visiting him. He made it clear that he did not
object to seeing them.
As to lawyer Potenciano Ilusorios mental state,
the Court of Appeals observed that he was of
sound and alert mind, having answered all the
relevant questions to the satisfaction of the
court.
Being of sound mind, he is thus possessed with
the capacity to make choices. In this case, the
crucial choices revolve on his residence and the
people he opts to see or live with. The choices he
made may not appeal to some of his family
members but these are choices which exclusively
belong to Potenciano. He made it clear before the
Court of Appeals that he was not prevented from
leaving his house or seeing people. With that
declaration, and absent any true restraint on his
liberty, we have no reason to reverse the findings
of the Court of Appeals.
With his full mental capacity coupled with the
right of choice, Potenciano Ilusorio may not be
the subject of visitation rights against his free
choice. Otherwise, we will deprive him of his right
to privacy. Needless to say, this will run against
his fundamental constitutional right. Es m
The Court of Appeals exceeded its authority when
it awarded visitation rights in a petition
for habeas corpus where Erlinda never even
prayed for such right. The ruling is not consistent
with the finding of subjects sanity.

[SPECPRO] 2015-2016
When the court ordered the grant of visitation
rights, it also emphasized that the same shall be
enforced under penalty of contempt in case of
violation or refusal to comply. Such assertion of
raw, naked power is unnecessary.
The Court of Appeals missed the fact that the
case did not involve the right of a parent to visit a
minor child but the right of a wife to visit a
husband. In case the husband refuses to see his
wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so
without threat of any penalty attached to the
exercise of his right.
No court is empowered as a judicial authority to
compel a husband to live with his wife. Coverture
cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ
of habeas corpus carried out by sheriffs or by any
other mesne process. That is a matter beyond
judicial authority and is best left to the man and
womans free choice.
WHEREFORE, in G. R. No. 139789, the Court
DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit. No costs.
In G. R. No. 139808, the Court GRANTS the
petition and nullifies the decision of the Court of
Appeals insofar as it gives visitation rights to
respondent Erlinda K. Ilusorio. No costs.
SO ORDERED